Get Entry by ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description itself adds nothing beyond that: no note on what a miss looks like (RESOURCE_NOT_FOUND), no mention of workspace scoping, no note that relationships are included by default.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — nothing was trimmed because nothing was there. It is well-formed, just thin.

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?

Five parameters, no required ones, 60% schema coverage and a cluster of near-identical sibling tools is a lot of ambiguity for one sentence to carry. An output schema and annotations do absorb the return-value and safety burden, but the workspace-isolation and team-vs-personal routing decisions remain entirely unexplained.

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 a middling 60%, and two parameters (`use_test_db`, `project_number`) have no description in either place. The description never mentions a single parameter, so it contributes no meaning beyond what the schema already says about `entry_id` or the workspace anti-hallucination guidance.

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 a specific verb+resource pair ("retrieve a specific entry by its ID"), which is clear and unambiguous on its own. However, it gives no hint of how it differs from the sibling `team_get_entry_by_id` (or from `get_recent_entries` / `search_entries`), so the agent cannot resolve the near-identical naming without opening schemas.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus `search_entries`, `get_recent_entries`, or the team-scoped `team_get_entry_by_id`. The only disambiguation-adjacent content (the RESOURCE_NOT_FOUND / workspace_id:"*" escape hatch) lives in the schema, not in the description.

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