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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds that the result is a single record containing all fields. It does not describe error behavior, missing-record handling, or authentication needs, so it adds only moderate behavioral context.

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 front-loaded and very tight: one sentence plus the endpoint. It contains no filler, and the key distinction of returning one record with all fields appears immediately.

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 one-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description supplies enough context: it names the record form, gives an example id, and says all fields are returned. Minor gaps around not-found behavior remain but are not critical for invocation.

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 the schema already documents the id format and example. The description repeats the id example and endpoint but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 it returns one record by id with all fields, which distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like list_records and query. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as vtiger_lookup, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'by id' implies the usage condition: use this when you already have a record id. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over vtiger_lookup, vtiger_query, or vtiger_list_records.

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