get_raw_data

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search order (checkpoint then archive) and the scope of data returned (full raw data). It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or potential response size, but still provides useful behavioral context.

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 sentences: purpose, search logic, and benefit. Efficient and front-loaded. No wasted words, though slight restructuring could improve flow.

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 an output schema exists (not shown but reported), the description need not cover return values. It explains the input parameter and search behavior, which is sufficient for a raw data retrieval tool. Could mention typical use cases or data size considerations.

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?

Only one parameter, entry_id, with no schema description. The description adds meaning by stating it is used to specify an entry and that the ID works across checkpoints. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though more detail on ID source could improve.

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 it retrieves complete raw data (headers, body, timing) for a specified entry. It distinguishes from sibling filtering and summary tools by focusing on raw retrieval across checkpoints.

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 explains search priority (current checkpoint then ARCHIVE) and the ability to fetch historical data even after checkpoint switches. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tool names.

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