get_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the return of entries matching filters and adds per_page max constraint, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe pagination behavior beyond parameter defaults.

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?

The description is clear and front-loaded, but slightly repetitive: 'Returns entries matching the provided filters' restates the first line. The Args list is well-structured. Could be made more concise.

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?

Given 5 optional parameters and the presence of an output schema (which explains return values), the description covers the input thoroughly. It does not cross-reference sibling tools or specify ordering, but is largely complete for a filtered list endpoint.

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%, but the description adds detailed meaning for all 5 parameters: defaults, max values, formats (ISO 8601 for since), and constraints (comma-separated ids, max 100). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Get article entries with optional filters', which is a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like get_read_entries or get_starred_entries, which serve more specific purposes.

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 provides parameter details but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., specialized getters for read/starred entries). It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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