retrieve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose concrete limits (max 10 entries, 100000 body characters) plus a nuance about tentative word-form candidates retaining match_kind=word_form. It does not state the read-only/reversibility profile or pagination behavior, but the bounds disclosure is meaningful and non-obvious.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences that each carry information: purpose, alternative routing, and bounds plus a caveat. Slightly dense in the final sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, routing, and return bounds, but leaves four parameters (rank, type, as_of, query) semantically unaddressed, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it implies the bounds for limit (ten entries) and max_body_chars (100000 characters). The rank enum values, type enum, as_of semantics, and query matching behavior are left entirely undocumented.

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+resource (search active entries, return full bodies and metadata) and explicitly frames itself as the single-call substitute for search + get_entry. An agent can distinguish it from search and get_entry from the description alone.

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 names the alternative pattern ('search followed by several get_entry calls') and the condition that selects this tool ('when the answer needs entry contents'). It also provides a verification caveat for word-form candidates, which is actionable usage guidance.

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