get_entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns JSON representation, which is a small behavioral detail. It doesn't disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist) or any rate limits, but with annotations covering the main traits, 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes the return format. Zero waste. Every word earns its place.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It doesn't explain error cases or ID format, but the output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety. The sibling context provides enough routing information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'stable ID' and 'entry_id' is the only parameter, which adds a bit of meaning (the ID is stable). However, it doesn't explain the format of the ID or how to obtain it, leaving some ambiguity. Baseline for 0% coverage would be lower, but the single parameter is self-explanatory from its name and the description's 'stable ID' phrase.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a specific resume entry by its stable ID'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_entry_ids or query_by_topic. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, but the resource and ID-based lookup are clear enough.

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: use this when you have a stable entry ID and need the full JSON representation. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (list_entry_ids for enumeration, query_by_topic for search) provides implicit guidance. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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