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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: the exact return payload fields, the not_found failure condition, the fact that visibility/permissions affect the result, and an explicit prompt-injection warning about untrusted CRM field values.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior (what it resolves and what it returns) before the secondary workspace note and the safety warning. No filler or repetition.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the record fields. It also covers the primary error case (not_found) and a security caveat. Auth/permission mechanics beyond "not visible to you" and pagination (not relevant for a single-record fetch) are not covered, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 only 50% — workspaceId is documented in the schema, but id is not. The description compensates by explaining that id is a search-result id that encodes its workspace and that workspaceId is therefore not needed, which is exactly the semantic gap the schema leaves open.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Resolves a search result id to the full record") and even enumerates the returned shape, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from near siblings such as get_record or search, so an agent must infer the distinction from the mention of a "search result id".

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 mention of resolving a "search result id" implies the intended workflow (call search, then fetch), and the note that the id already names its workspace implies when workspaceId is unnecessary. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for retrieving a record another way (e.g. get_record).

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