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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds that one or more records are fetched by id, but does not disclose behavior for missing ids, partial failures, or account scoping.

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. Every word adds meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the tool needs a richer description. The current text leaves important gaps around the account parameter, response shape, and behavior when ids are invalid or missing, so it is not fully adequate for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It roughly maps 'object' and 'ids' via 'registros de um objeto por id', but it fails to explain the optional 'account' parameter or the expected id format. This is only partial compensation for the missing parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the resource and action: retrieving one or more records of an object by id. It distinguishes from mutation tools and from list/search at a basic level, though it does not explicitly contrast with crm_get_object or crm_related_records.

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 implies use when fetching records by id, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer crm_get_object, crm_related_records, or crm_search.

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