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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations (which already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive): it discloses an audit trail including which AI made changes, voided state, the response_format tradeoff, and a security-relevant note that untrusted_text holds third-party data not instructions. That is genuinely useful behavior for a read tool. It stops short of stating return shape, pagination, or error behavior when an id is missing, so it is not a 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the resource and verb lead, followed by what the record contains, then the important untrusted_text caveat. Every sentence carries weight, though the long parenthetical type list and the final flagged-text sentence make it slightly heavy.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the record contents, links, audit/voided state, the concise/detailed tradeoff, and a prompt-injection warning — more than the annotations provide. It could still state behavior on invalid ids, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 50%: id has no schema description, but the description implies it is the Aggregate id covering many record types, which adds meaning. response_format is already fully documented in the schema, so the description adds nothing for it. Baseline 3 fits since the schema handles the enum and the description only partially compensates for the id parameter.

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 (get) and resource (any record by id) and enumerates the resource types covered (transaction, invoice, bill, entry, payroll run, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from the many list_/query_/search_ siblings that filter collections rather than fetch by id. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

Implicitly frames usage as fetching a full record given an Aggregate id, but never states when to prefer this over get_document, get_bucket, or get_activity, nor the precondition that a valid id is required. No explicit when-not guidance, so usage is only implied.

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