bowrd_get_entry

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read, but the description says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid ID, auth or permission needs, or rate limits, leaving meaningful gaps for even a simple lookup tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and lookup key come first. Slightly muddied by the 'pin/entry' terminology doubling, which is the only reason it isn't a clean 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A one-parameter lookup is nearly self-explanatory, and there are no nested objects. However, with no output schema, the description's 'detailed information' never hints at what is returned or which identifier form to prefer, leaving minor gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single entry_id parameter is fully documented as numeric ID or UUID, so baseline 3 applies. The description merely restates the same 'ID or UUID' duality without adding format or resolution details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb+resource: 'Retrieve detailed information about a single pin/entry by its ID or UUID.' The word 'single' and 'by its ID' implicitly separate it from list/search siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers this is the tool for fetching one known entry, versus bowrd_search_entries or bowrd_list_entries. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.