clio_get_calendar_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'full detail' without disclosing error behavior, permissions, or what happens if the entry does not exist. There is no behavioral context beyond the basic read operation.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified: 'full detail' is vague and does not convey what fields or behaviors are involved. Conciseness is good, but the brevity sacrifices needed information.

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?

For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides only minimal context. It does not explain what 'full detail' includes, how to handle missing IDs, or what the response structure is, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'id' with no description and 0% coverage. The description does not explicitly connect the parameter to the calendar entry or explain its format. The parameter name is self-evident, but the description adds no additional meaning.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (calendar entry) and indicates it returns the complete object, distinguishing it from 'find' operations that search. It is specific about scope ('one') but does not explicitly restate the verb from the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clio_find_calendar_entries. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is mentioned.

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