get_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read operation that returns the record's full field set, and it lists the content types that may come back (including optional sentence-level transcripts), but it says nothing about the authorization needed to access a record, what happens when the ID is not found, or how the transcript payload is shaped.

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 two compact clauses that front-load the core action and then add ID semantics. There is no filler, though the taxonomy takes up most of the space while a more important parameter goes unmentioned.

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 the description need not unpack return values, and the ID-prefix explanation covers the main input. The missing piece is include_transcript and the relationship to get_transcript or get_project, which an agent would need in order to choose correctly among the siblings.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description has to compensate. It does add meaningful semantics for record_id through the E/N/P prefix taxonomy, which the schema does not. However, it says nothing about include_transcript, the second parameter, even though that parameter defaults to true and overlaps with the get_transcript sibling.

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 and resource: fetch all fields of one record by ID, and it adds a prefix taxonomy (E/N/P) that tells the agent what kind of object each ID designates. It does not, however, separate this tool from get_transcript or get_project, even though their names suggest overlap.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives, despite sibling tools named get_transcript, list_records, and get_project. The prefix explanation implies the usage scope, but it leaves the agent to infer whether this is the right tool when the goal is a transcript or a project.

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