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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing a scope limit the agent cannot otherwise know: 'Private fields and custom fields are not exposed,' which warns against treating the output as a complete field catalog. It stops short of describing the shape or size of the returned option sets.

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 scope constraint front-loaded and the exclusion caveat second. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant with the name, title, or schema.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description conveys enough to call it correctly and to set expectations about missing private/custom fields. The remaining gap is that it does not indicate what the response looks like (per-field option sets, labels vs. internal values), which an agent must discover by calling.

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 0%, but the single parameter is a self-explanatory enum of five record modules, which carries most of its own meaning. The description's phrase 'for a record module' loosely ties to it but adds no guidance on enum semantics or how module choice affects the returned options, so it neither compensates for nor worsens the coverage gap.

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 verb ('discover') and a specific resource ('currently permitted operational status and priority options for a record module'), which is far more informative than the tool name alone. It is clear what the tool returns conceptually, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like check_action or find_records, leaving some disambiguation to inference.

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 clause 'before editing it' supplies a clear usage moment, which is genuinely helpful context for sequencing. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative, so an agent must infer that this is a pre-write lookup rather than a validation call (check_action) or a listing call (find_records).

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