get_entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the per-entry-type payload shape and a prompt-injection caution about human-authored content. However, it says nothing about the `embed` expansion behavior or any paging/error characteristics, so it is solid but not rich.

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 the core action, then payload shapes, then alternatives, then a security note — a sensible ordering with little filler. The payload enumeration is slightly verbose but genuinely informative given there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe what each entry type returns, which is the main completeness risk here. The remaining gap is that the `embed` parameter's effect on the response is never explained, so an agent cannot predict what extra data it will receive.

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 50%: `embed` is well documented in the schema but `id` is not. The description compensates partially by specifying the id is numeric, yet it says nothing about what the embed tokens change in the response. Baseline 3 fits a case where the schema does most of the lifting.

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 — fetch a single timeline entry by its numeric id — and immediately contrasts with the sibling operations update_entry and delete_entry plus the list_*_entries family that produces the id. An agent can distinguish it from every nearby tool without opening a schema.

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 trigger condition ("when you have an entry id from one of the `list_*_entries` calls and want the full content") and routes modification and deletion to the correct alternatives. No inference is required to pick this tool over its siblings.

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