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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that — text payloads are silently truncated at 2,000 characters unless fullText is set, and the batch size is capped at 100. It does not cover what happens when an id does not exist (error vs omission), which is the main remaining unknown for a read tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero preamble; the size cap and the truncation rule are front-loaded. Every clause carries information the agent could not get from the schema.

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 rich annotations, only five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the two behaviors an agent would otherwise get wrong (batch cap, text truncation). Gaps remain around baseId's format and the missing-id response, but these are minor for a simple key-based read.

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 only 40% (table and fields documented, baseId/ids/fullText bare), so the description must compensate. It does explain fullText's behavioral effect — the one parameter whose meaning is not evident from a boolean name — but leaves baseId and ids undocumented, so coverage is only partial.

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 (fetch) and resource (records) plus a scope qualifier — retrieval 'by id' capped at 100 — so the agent can infer this is a key-based lookup rather than a filter query. It never names the sibling query_records, so the differentiation is implied by 'by id' rather than stated.

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?

'Fetch ... by id' hints that this is the path when ids are already known, which implies query_records is for filtering, but no when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule or alternative is named. The agent must infer the routing decision from the prepositional phrase alone.

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