get_raw_entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior about exact stored format and extra %E lines, but it omits how max_chars affects truncation or output size.

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 filler. The parenthetical format-token list is dense but directly supports the meaning of 'raw internal format' and 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?

The read-only annotations and output schema reduce what the description must cover, and it does a good job describing the returned format and sibling distinction. However, invocation is still under-specified because neither the schema nor the description explains anum format or max_chars truncation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it never explains anum or max_chars. The word 'entry' weakly implies anum, yet max_chars and its truncation semantics are completely unaddressed.

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 precisely states that this returns the entry record exactly as stored in oeisdata, including internal-format lines and %E extension lines. It also explicitly distinguishes the result from get_entry, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 mention that this includes %E extension lines that get_entry does not carry gives clear context for when this tool is preferable to the sibling. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and does not discuss max_chars.

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