mop_get_register_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a return dict but does not state whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled, or any prerequisites. The inclusion of a 'ctx' argument not present in the schema adds confusion about expected inputs.

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 well-structured with PURPOSE, WHEN TO USE, Args, and Returns sections, and is reasonably compact. Minor redundancy between the title line and PURPOSE, plus the extra ctx parameter, add slight noise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers essential purpose, usage context, and return type. However, it does not explain how to obtain entry_id or valid register_type values, and the ctx parameter creates schema inconsistency. The presence of an output schema partially offsets the return detail gap.

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 schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It offers only trivial glosses like 'ID des Registereintrags' and 'Register-Typ' that largely repeat parameter names, and lists 'ctx' which is absent from the schema. This does not clarify how to source entry_id or what register_type values are valid.

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 'Detailansicht eines Registereintrags' and 'Vollständige Informationen zu Person, Ort, etc.', identifying the tool as a detail retriever for register entries. This distinguishes it from search tools like mop_search_register and other getters like mop_get_biogramm_by_id.

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?

The 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly says to use after a register search and for biographical/geographical details, providing clear context. It does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, which prevents a perfect score.

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