get_gna_entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so the description's key added value is the exclusivity constraint between id and short_name. This is meaningful behavioral guidance beyond the structured data, though no error details or response format are included.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the key constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool is a simple getter with a complete input schema, strong read-only annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the essential identifier requirement; minor gaps like error behavior when both parameters are omitted are acceptable given the 'exactly one' statement.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both id and short_name with examples. The description restates the 'exact' requirement for short_name but does not add material semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the tool gets a specific GNA entry by numeric ID or exact short name, using a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from list/search siblings by emphasizing 'specific' and the exact-identifier constraint, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 instruction 'Exactly one of id or short_name must be provided' gives clear usage context for invocation. It implies this tool is for known identifiers rather than broad search, though it does not explicitly contrast with list or search tools.

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