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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it reveals that the overview covers what the record 'refuses to do' and the latest changes, which tells the agent it will learn about limitations and recent state. It does not describe output formatting, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The most important instruction, "Start here," is front-loaded, and each sentence adds a distinct piece of guidance.

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 zero-parameter, read-only overview tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool surfaces: holdings, limitations, and recent changes. It could be more complete by clarifying what 'record' means or hinting at the return structure, but it covers the essential orientation role.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 indicates the tool gives an overview of a record: what it holds, its limitations, and recent changes. However, it never specifies what kind of 'record' this refers to or what operation is performed, leaving the purpose only partially clear. It also does not differentiate itself from siblings like record_gaps or recent_changes.

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?

"Start here" and "Read it before assuming what is available" give clear guidance on when to invoke this tool: as an initial orientation step. It does not name specific alternatives or exclusions, but the sequencing advice is explicit enough to guide an agent.

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