show

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the ~6000 character per-call cap, the truncation fallback (title line plus the call that fetches the remainder), preserved request ordering, inclusion of superseded entries, and unknown-id reporting. It never explicitly states the operation is read-only / side-effect free, which is the one behavioral fact left implicit.

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 purpose, then usage, then behavioral contract, then args — a sensible order. Nearly every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical justification "whoever asks for the id means that one" and the approximate "about 6000 characters" are slightly loose.

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 two params, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that already covers return shape, the description supplies everything needed: workflow placement, id format, ordering, size cap, truncation recovery path, and error-like behavior for unknown ids.

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, and it does: it explains that ids are entry ids with a concrete format example ("376,481") and precedence ordering ("most wanted first"), and that full removes the cap with a stated default. Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 verb and resource ("Returns the named entries in full text") and immediately distinguishes itself from the recall/topics siblings by noting it "takes ids, not search terms." An agent can tell exactly which tool fetches by id versus which searches.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool in a workflow: "Use it after recall or topics, once you know which entries you need." It names the upstream alternatives and the condition (already having ids) that selects this tool over them, leaving nothing to inference.

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