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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it specifies the exact fields returned and the optional versioning behavior. It does not contradict annotations and supplements them with return-content details.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It leads with the resource and scope, lists the key returned fields, and notes the optional version—every word earns its 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?

Given the low complexity (2 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate. It explains what the tool returns and the optional versioning, and annotations cover safety. It does not describe error cases or not-found behavior, but that is not critical for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 both parameters are already fully documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it mentions 'named version' which aligns with the schema's 'version' parameter, but does not clarify identifier formats beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 a specific verb 'get' and resource 'Family Office Record', and scopes it to 'one identifier'. It enumerates the returned fields (value, source_url, read_by, state) and mentions an optional named version, which clearly differentiates it from the sibling list/resolve tools that operate on collections or resolve identifiers.

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 implies when to use it (when you have a single identifier and want the full record), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like list_nodes and resolve_family_office are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from context.

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