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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful 'caller-owned' scoping limitation, but it does not disclose behavior for missing records, response shape, or any other runtime details. With annotations carrying most of the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 states the verb, object, and key scoping constraint efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. It could additionally mention what happens when a requested record does not exist, but that is not essential for basic correct use.

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%, and both keyValueStoreId and recordKey are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but no more.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the resource ('key-value store record'), adding the important constraints 'one exact' and 'caller-owned.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get-dataset-items and get-actor-run, which address different Apify resources.

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 provides clear context: use this when you need exactly one record by exact key from a caller-owned Apify key-value store. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the resource scope is specific enough that an agent can identify the right situation.

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