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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds concrete behavioral detail about the returned payload (version, related rows, record-type-specific associations) and the prerequisite that the id must already be known from search/list. 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?

Three compact sentences carry high information density with the core behavior front-loaded. Each clause adds value: output contents, prerequisites, and update workflow.

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?

The description is complete for a get-by-id tool: it states prerequisites, usage in the update flow, output scope, and the safe read-only nature, backed by annotations and an output schema. No critical operational information is missing.

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 only 50% (id is described as UUID; record_type has an enum but no definition). The description compensates by clarifying that id must be exact and non-guessed, and by showing how record_type selects different related-row behavior for candidate/job/list, though not all enum values receive explicit semantic detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reads') and resource ('one record in full by exact id') and immediately distinguishes this retrieval-by-id tool from list/search siblings. It also enumerates what 'full' means: standard fields, custom fields by slug, version, and related rows.

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?

It gives explicit context: an id must come from a search or list result, and the tool should be called before an update to obtain expected_version. It also warns against guessing an id, but it does not name or explicitly contrast alternatives such as search_records or get_activity.

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