get_entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds guidance about 'full details' and expand behavior. However, it does not disclose additional traits like auth requirements, rate limits, or error scenarios. The expand explanation is more about parameter semantics than deep behavioral transparency, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no wasted words: the first clearly states purpose, the second explains the key optional parameter. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 read-only get-by-id tool with a rich output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete. It covers the core purpose and the expand option, and does not need to explain return values since output schema exists.

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%; the schema already thoroughly explains 'id' (UUID from list_entries) and 'expand' (inline collection/tags, array for both). The description's expand note adds minimal value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is fitting.

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 the tool fetches a single entry by ID with full details, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_entries (which lists multiple) and create_entry/update_entry/delete_entry (which modify). The verb 'Get' and resource 'entry' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving a single entry by ID, contrasting with list_entries for multiple entries. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just 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.