get_entry

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with a safe, snapshot-local read. It adds real behavioral detail beyond the annotations: which fields are returned by default, that terms and offset always come back, that ext swaps DATA for up to 256 b-file terms, and that max_chars truncates long text fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource, then parameter-by-parameter notes with zero filler; the closing pointer to get_raw_entry is well placed. The compact multi-line style is scannable but reads more like terse spec notes than prose.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys enough about the return shape (terms and offset always present, field selection controls the rest) for an agent to call and consume it correctly. It stops short of describing the overall response structure or whether truncation is signaled, which is the remaining gap for a five-parameter tool.

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 carries the full burden and does: it documents anum's accepted alternative formats ('108', 'a108'), the exact enum-like set of field names plus the default set and 'all', and the effect of ext, max_terms, and max_chars. Every one of the five parameters is given meaning the bare schema lacks.

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?

States a specific resource (one OEIS entry) plus its source (the snapshot), and explicitly differentiates from get_raw_entry for internal-format records. It does not, however, distinguish itself from get_summaries or get_bfile, which an agent might reasonably confuse with 'one entry' retrieval.

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?

Names a concrete alternative and the condition selecting it ('for the exact internal-format record ... use get_raw_entry'), and implicitly routes to the 'ext' path when real b-file terms are wanted. No guidance is given on when to prefer get_summaries or get_bfile over this tool, so the alternative map is incomplete.

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