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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a brief return-format note, which duplicates the output schema, and says nothing about behavior for missing/invalid IDs.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the operation is stated first. It is efficient, though it spends one of only two sentences restating the return shape already covered by the output 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?

With annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the lightweight description is close to adequate. Still missing is any note on error behavior for nonexistent IDs or guidance on selecting this tool over the search siblings.

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 100%, with each of the three parameters documented, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no extra meaning about the fields parameter or ID semantics beyond what is already structured.

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 and resource ('Reads Odoo records by ID'), which clearly distinguishes a by-ID fetch from search-style siblings. It does not, however, explicitly name odoo_search_read or odoo_search_count as the alternatives, so differentiation is implicit.

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 says nothing about when to use this versus odoo_search_read, odoo_search_count, or odoo_fields_get. An agent must infer from the name that this is the right tool only when IDs are already known.

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