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

No annotations are provided, placing the burden on the description. The verb 'consulta' indicates a read operation, and 'tenant atual' provides scoping context. However, it does not disclose details such as permission requirements for sensitive profiles or behavior when the record is not found, relying instead on schema descriptions.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no wasted wording or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a straightforward get-by-id tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and scoping. It lacks mention of optional sensitive-data parameters, but these are fully documented in the input schema, so the description remains sufficiently complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema; it merely restates the constraint about using public_uid, which the 'id' parameter description already covers.

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 uses a specific verb ('Consulta' - queries), identifies the resource ('registro de fonograma'), and scopes it ('do tenant atual'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_fonograma and search by emphasizing the use of only public_uid for a single record lookup.

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 usage context: use this when you have a public_uid and need a single record from the current tenant. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, such as needing to list multiple records or search by other criteria.

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