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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses visibility scoping ('exactly your visibility'), the not_found behavior for missing or inaccessible records, and a security caveat that CRM field values are untrusted. These add real behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide. No contradiction with 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, front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place: primary behavior, mutation prerequisite, not_found semantics, and security 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?

For a simple read tool, it covers visibility, not_found, expectedUpdatedAt, and data-safety guidance. However, with no output schema it leaves the full return record shape implicit; an agent must infer that the result contains arbitrary CRM fields beyond updatedAt. This is a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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 33% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning; it never explains id, objectType, or how they relate to the returned record. workspaceId is already documented in the schema, so the description contributes nothing beyond structure. At low coverage the description was expected to compensate and did not.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns one record with exactly your visibility,' immediately distinguishing this single-record getter from list/search siblings. It also states the key byproduct (current updatedAt) that makes the tool's purpose concrete. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 gives clear usage context by stating updatedAt is needed as expectedUpdatedAt for update_record and delete_record, so an agent knows when to call get_record. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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