objects_get_record_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the name—no mention of return format, error handling, or side effects. It contributes nothing beyond the annotations, which is a weak score given the description's responsibility to add value.

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 extremely short ('Get Record By Id'), which is concise but under-specified. It lacks any structural elements such as context or guidance, and it is not front-loaded with useful information. It is more of a tautology than a concise explanation.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns (no output schema), how to identify a record, or any limitations. An agent would struggle to understand the scope and purpose beyond the name and schema. Given the lack of output schema and the minimal description, the tool is incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter descriptions for both id and schemaKey. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema adequately explains the parameters, including the custom_objects. prefix requirement. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get Record By Id' restates the tool name with little added specificity. While it does name a verb and resource, it does not clarify what kind of record this refers to (e.g., custom object vs standard object), leaving the meaning ambiguous. Compared to siblings like objects_get_object_by_location_id, it is not differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer it over objects_search_object_records or other get-by-id tools, nor does it explain any preconditions. The description provides zero usage context.

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