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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: results are scoped to 'the current team', the report is a 'frozen' snapshot, and email/phone values inside answers come back masked.

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 core action and scope, followed by the payload contents and then the masking caveat. Nothing is repeated and every clause carries information.

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-value documentation is not strictly required, yet the description still summarizes the payload shape, states the team scoping, and discloses the masking transformation. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 the single recordId parameter is fully documented in the schema; the description restates the same provenance ('the `id` field returned by list_records') without adding format, validation, or failure semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a one-parameter tool whose schema does the work.

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 (view) and resource (one submission record / lead by record id) and enumerates exactly what is returned: examinee, answers, UTM metadata, frozen report result. This clearly distinguishes it from list_records, which only yields ids, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Implies usage context by pointing at 'the `id` field returned by list_records', which tells the agent this is the fetch-one follow-up to a list call. However, it offers no exclusions or alternatives, and the sibling set contains get_lead and get_examinee whose relationship to this tool is never disambiguated despite the description equating 'record' with 'lead'.

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