get_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns complete BibTeX and resolved attached files, and explicitly mentions error behavior for missing keys. This goes beyond a bare 'get' statement, though it doesn't detail error types or side effects (unlikely for a 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, followed by the error condition. Every word adds value; no fluff or repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: what it returns, why it's needed, and failure mode. It doesn't mention prerequisites like prior list_entries usage, but that is not implied by the tool signature and can be inferred from the citation key context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the single parameter. It explains that citation_key identifies a single citation and that the tool errors if that key does not exist, adding meaning beyond the bare string type. A format example or source hint would be extra, but with one parameter this is sufficient.

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 states 'Get the full record for one citation key' with specific output content ('complete BibTeX plus the resolved attached files'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_entries or get_pdf. It also provides a specific use case ('needed for summarization'), making the tool's role immediately clear.

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?

It gives a clear context for when to use this tool ('needed for summarization') and states the error condition ('Raises an error if the key does not exist'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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