get_record_access

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's main value is its scope disclaimer: it returns effective record rights without 'inventing why they were granted' and without claiming field-level or business-rule access. That is meaningful behavioral context an agent needs to interpret results correctly. It does not describe the shape of the returned rights or any pagination/permission requirements, keeping it below a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by scope constraints, with no filler. The 'native bound RetrievePrincipalAccess' phrasing is slightly jargon-heavy but still compact and purposeful.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what 'effective record rights' looks like in the response (e.g., an access-rights set), and it does not. It also does not clarify the effectively-required collection_name/record_id pair implied by the anyOf structure. It is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves return-shape and parameter-requirement gaps.

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?

At 63% schema coverage, the schema itself documents the aliases, the principal_type enum, and the default to current systemuser. The description only gestures at 'the specified principal and record' and adds no detail on principal_type, collection_name, or the alias/conflict behavior, so it neither compensates for the gaps nor adds value over the structured fields. Baseline 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 states a specific verb+resource: retrieve effective record rights for a given principal and record. It is clearly a read access-check tool, distinguishable from siblings like get_principal_security_context or get_record_audit_history. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it does not reach the top of the scale.

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 only usage direction is 'Use native bound RetrievePrincipalAccess for the specified principal and record,' which restates the operation rather than telling the agent when to pick this over get_principal_security_context or get_record_audit_history. There are no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., which principal types are valid without a principal_id) beyond what the schema already shows.

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