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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the exact return fields, the not_found result for nonexistent or invisible records, and the security warning that CRM field values are untrusted data. This gives the agent a strong behavioral model without contradicting annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, key behavior, and return shape come first, followed by a concise security note. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundant wording.

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?

With no output schema, the description still specifies the returned record shape and error behavior. It also covers visibility restrictions and the untrusted-content concern. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description adds useful meaning for id ('search result id', 'names its workspace'), compensating for the missing schema description on id. However, the claim 'no workspaceId is needed' conflicts with the schema's workspaceId description saying it is required when the connection covers more than one workspace, which reduces the reliability of the parameter guidance.

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 action: 'Resolves a search result id to the full record.' This clearly identifies the resource and output shape, and the phrase 'search result id' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_record or list_records.

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 makes it clear this is the follow-up to a search result and explains that the id is self-contained ('no workspaceId is needed'). It does not explicitly contrast with get_record or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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