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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read operation with no side effects, but it does not explain what happens when the record is missing or not certified, what the response contains, or whether any access requirements apply.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the resource, the operation, the key qualifier, and the parameter in an efficient way.

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 one-parameter read tool this is minimally viable: an agent with a record_id can likely invoke it. But with no output schema and no annotations, it omits the return shape, the meaning of 'certified', and error/not-found behavior, leaving important context to inference.

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 schema has only record_id as a required string with 0% description coverage, and the description merely restates record_id without adding format, length, source, or constraints. The purpose of the parameter is inferable, but the description adds no real semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: retrieve one certified record by its record_id. The 'single ... by its record_id' phrasing helps distinguish it from search_records (multi-result search) and get_record_history (history of changes), even without naming them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you already have a record_id and need the single record. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over search_records or get_record_history, nor does it mention any exclusions or fallback behavior.

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