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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds value by noting the call is a POST that is nonetheless a read ("POST /clientapis/v2.0/getRecordsWithFields (a read)") — pre-empting an agent's assumption that POST mutates. It also warns about heavy payloads per record, though it says nothing about pagination limits or rate behavior.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: what it returns, how to filter, and how it is transported. The returned-field list is front-loaded and every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated 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 21 params and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the field entry keys the caller will receive, which compensates for the missing output schema. Remaining gaps are minor (pagination expectations, whether all records are returned or only those with fields), but for a read-only filtered query this is close to complete.

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 all 21 parameters are documented in-schema, so the description correctly defers by saying "same filters as safetychain_search_records". The narrowing advice adds some practical meaning, but no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides — baseline 3.

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 and resource ("Get the field-level values of records") and explicitly spells out the per-record shape (name, short name, type, value, unit, compliance, min, max, target...). This cleanly separates it from sibling safetychain_get_record (which presumably returns record-level data) and from safetychain_search_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?

Gives concrete usage direction: reuse the safetychain_search_records filter set but "narrow strongly (a record number or one form and a short date range)", with the reason that each record carries many fields. It doesn't explicitly state a when-not-to-use case against safetychain_get_record or search_records, which keeps it short of a 5.

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