mop_get_adjutanten_journal_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return structure, the possibility of ToolError for not found or retrieval failure, and the ctx parameter for progress reporting. It does not discuss access control or side effects, but for a read-only retrieval tool this is quite transparent. A slight gap is the lack of detail on text format, but overall it is strong.

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?

Though lengthy, the description is well-organized with clear headers (PURPOSE, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, Args, Returns, Raises). Every section contributes essential information, and the primary description is front-loaded. No redundant content exists.

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?

This tool has a complex return type (days list with multiple nested fields) and no formal output schema, but the description includes a full return dict structure. It also covers error handling, parameter sourcing, and usage context, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly without any additional documentation.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by defining document_id as 'Document ID from search results (e.g., 'P0005285')'. This tells the agent where to get the value and provides an example format. For a single required parameter, this is excellent semantic enrichment.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve full text and metadata of a specific journal entry.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by stating it is used after search_adjutanten_journals() and contrasts with get_register_entry(). The purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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?

Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections are provided. It specifies using this tool after search_adjutanten_journals() and lists alternatives for searching multiple entries (search_adjutanten_journals()) and biographical data (get_register_entry()). This gives clear decision criteria for an agent.

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