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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive/openWorld annotations, the description discloses that `type` is a forgiving hint resolved against the true type, that admin-only governance records resolve by id, and critically that stale/unknown/malformed ids return {found:false} plus a fresh search rather than an error. These are substantial behavioral traits not present in structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then edge-case behavior, then usage guidance. The long parenthetical type enumeration is dense but earns its place by defining the valid `type` space; overall efficient with minimal waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, yet the description still conveys the important {found:false} failure shape and the resolve-by-id guarantee. Nothing needed to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: `type` is an optional hint that need not match, and the valid type space is enumerated. `include_archived` is left unexplained, so it does not fully cover all params.

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+resource and scope ('Fetch the full detail of any record by id'), and differentiates itself from siblings by noting it retrieves without searching and is 'less common than search_* tools'. An agent can distinguish it from search_records and update_record without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit 'When to use: When you have an id and want the full record without searching' gives a clear triggering condition, and it routes governance-record listing to search_records. It stops short of naming a full alternative/negative case for each object type, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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