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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call resolves identity and requires a fully-qualified URI, but says nothing about failure modes (missing record, unresolvable DID) or rate limits. Adds light context above the annotations, not rich behavior.

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 tight sentences with the addressing requirement front-loaded and the return summary second. No filler, no restatement of the name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The one gap is that the description never hints at the available 'include' enrichments, which is the only non-obvious invocation choice for this tool.

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 coverage is 100% and both the uri format and the 'include' enrichments (schema/backlinks/profile) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the URI requirement and never mentions the 'include' parameter, so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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 (fetch) and resource (a single record) and pins down the identifier form required to address it. Against siblings like list_records, get_backlinks, and get_profile, an agent can immediately tell this is the single-record-by-URI retrieval tool.

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 a hard precondition ('must include collection and rkey'), which is useful, but it never states when to choose this over list_records or when to prefer get_backlinks/get_profile for the enriched data. Usage is only implied by the singular 'single record'.

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