get_registry_entry

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

The description uses '返す' (returns), implying a read operation, and the annotations readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already indicate safety. However, the description itself does not explicitly state that no side effects occur or that it is read-only.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's function and key parameter. No irrelevant information or verbose elaboration is present.

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 simple retrieval tool, the description covers the main purpose and parameter. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not clarify the exact shape of the returned data or potential failure modes, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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?

The only parameter entry_id is mentioned in the description as the lookup key, but no format, type constraints, or example values are given. The schema lacks a description, so the tool description carries the full burden; it only says 'by entry_id' without further clarification.

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 clearly states that the tool returns source, authority, jurisdiction, compensation disclosure, verification status, and provenance for a given entry_id. It does not explicitly contrast with related tools like list_registry or verify_source, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as list_registry or verify_source. The description does not mention prerequisites, expected context, or scenarios where this tool would be preferred.

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