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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond restating that it reads: it does not say what happens when the id is missing, whether a not-found case returns empty or errors, or which key type is required.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key constraint ('by id') is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than purposeful compression.

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 simple three-parameter read tool with annotations and a mostly documented schema, the description is adequate to call the tool correctly. It omits return shape, not-found behavior, and authentication nuances, but annotations and the api_key description partly compensate.

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 67%, with api_key (including the pro_/pub_ distinction) and collection already documented in the schema. The phrase 'by id' ties the request to record_id but adds no format or lookup semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read one record by id'), which clearly separates it from write siblings like create_record, update_record, and patch_record. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the read-single semantics are 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as list_records (for multiple records) or patch_record (for changes). The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the 'by id' phrase.

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