get_career_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description does not disclose what happens with an invalid ID (does it error or return null?), whether the entry is a single object or wrapper, or any behavioral characteristics. '取得' implies a read operation, but with zero annotations and no behavioral detail, this is a thin disclosure.

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?

A single concise sentence that states the purpose and selection mechanism. Zero waste, front-loaded meaning. It could arguably benefit from slightly more detail, but for such a simple one-parameter tool, this is appropriately minimal without being under-specified to the point of failure.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. There's no statement about what the response contains, no error behavior, and no distinction from list_career_entries. Given the tool's simplicity, completeness is partially adequate, but the lack of any exclusionary guidance about when to use list instead is a gap.

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 coverage is 100% — the single 'id' parameter is described as an entry ID (UUID). The description adds the context that this ID specifies which career entry to retrieve, reinforcing the schema. With 100% schema coverage and one simple parameter, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond the schema but doesn't need to.

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 '経歴を取得 (IDで指定)' clearly states the verb (get/retrieve) and resource (career/経歴), and specifies it's selected by ID. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like get_career_entry vs list_career_entries — though the 'by ID' qualifier provides implicit differentiation, it could explicitly note that list_career_entries is for listing all.

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 '(IDで指定)' qualifier implies this is for retrieving a single specific entry by ID, which contrasts with list_career_entries for listing. However, there's no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance, no mention of what makes this different from other get_* sibling tools, and no context about when to prefer this over related tools.

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