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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses that the response includes custom fields, tags and links, and maps the call to GET /<Object>/{id} — useful return-shape context that the annotation and schema do not provide.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the core action and scope front-loaded and the API mapping relegated to a trailing clause. Every element earns its place.

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, the description partially compensates by noting the record's custom fields, tags and links. Combined with the readOnly annotation and fully documented params, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though richer return detail would help.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, giving the baseline of 3. The description's enumeration of object types and 'by id' phrasing merely restates the enum and id parameter without adding format or constraint detail.

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 verb ('Fetch a single') and enumerates the exact resource types available, including the by-id scope. It implicitly separates itself from the plural sibling insightly_list_records via 'single ... by id', but never names that sibling 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 by 'a single ... by id', which tells the agent this is the point-lookup path, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of when to prefer list_records/search_by_tag instead. Adequate but not directive.

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