sd_get_register_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect of include_mentions ('fetch mentions across letters, diaries, lectures') and max_mentions ('Max mentions per category'), and notes that return type varies by entry type. However, it doesn't disclose potential performance implications of fetching mentions or what happens when an entry_id is not found, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

Despite being detailed, the description is well-structured with clear sections (PURPOSE, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, Args, Returns). Every sentence carries informative content, no filler. The front-loaded purpose line immediately tells the agent what the tool does, and the subsequent sections earn their place.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage conditions, parameter semantics, and return types ('PersonEntry, PlaceEntry, WorkEntry, or dict'). It even notes the existence of an output schema. Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, one required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete and self-sufficient 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?

The input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains each parameter: entry_id with an example format, include_mentions with its effect, max_mentions with its default and behavior, and even the internal ctx parameter. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a register entry' and elaborates with 'Complete register entry details, optionally with mentions.' It specifies the resource (register entry) and the action (get detailed information), and distinguishes from document-related tools by explicitly noting 'For document details → use get_document_by_id().' This effectively differentiates it from siblings with overlapping functions.

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 description provides explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections, giving concrete contexts such as 'After register search for details about a person/place/work' and 'For biographical information.' It also names the alternative tool for document details. This clearly guides the agent on when to select this tool over others.

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