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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so this is clearly a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral nuance beyond those hints: the report result is 'frozen', and email addresses or phone numbers in answers are masked on return. This gives the agent realistic expectations about data fidelity without needing to call the tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and resource, followed by a useful enumeration of contents and the key masking behavior. Every clause contributes actionable information, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

Given a one-parameter schema, an existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains how the id is obtained, scopes the record to the current team, lists the key subcomponents, and reveals the masking behavior an agent needs to set expectations before invoking.

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?

The input schema fully documents recordId and even restates the provenance from list_records. The description largely repeats that same provenance. Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description does not add much parameter meaning beyond tying the operation to the current team.

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 ('View the full detail of one submission record') and then enumerates the included contents: examinee, answers, UTM metadata, and the frozen report result. This scope is clear enough to distinguish get_record from list_records (one record vs. lists) and from get_form or get_lead, even without naming them as alternatives.

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 context: use this when you need the complete detail of a single record in the current team, and it explicitly ties the required parameter to the id returned by list_records. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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