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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety bar is met structurally; the description adds the visibility model, the not_found error condition, and a prompt-injection warning about CRM field content. Error semantics and the trust boundary are meaningful additions beyond the 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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the return contract, followed by the security caveat. No filler, though the untrusted-content warning is generic boilerplate rather than tool-specific detail.

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 correctly carries the return contract (single record, updatedAt, not_found) and the visibility precondition. It is nearly complete, missing only the parameter-level explanation of objectType/id.

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% — only workspaceId is documented, while id and objectType have patterns but no prose. The description does not explain objectType values or id format, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage on a 3-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (returns one record) plus the visibility scope, which cleanly separates it from list_records and search in the sibling set. 'one record' signals the cardinality distinction that an agent needs.

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?

Explicitly ties the call to a downstream workflow: the returned updatedAt is needed as expectedUpdatedAt for update_record and delete_record. That is real routing guidance, though it never states when to prefer this over siblings like get_record_lifecycle or get_record_action_context.

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