get_custom_module_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. 'Get' implies a read-only operation without stating it explicitly. It also doesn't mention pagination, response format, or any side effects. While not misleading, it lacks depth beyond what the name already suggests.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action ('Get records') and adds key modifiers. Every word earns its place, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, optional filtering, pagination, and no output schema. The description is minimal, covering only the basic action. It does not mention pagination behavior, return format, or error cases. Given the complexity and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps in understanding for an agent.

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 67% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description's 'flexible filtering' hints at filter_field/filter_value, but the schema already describes these. It adds no meaningful explanation for page and per_page, which lack schema descriptions. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter details, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's function: get records from a custom module, with the scope 'any custom module' and the qualifier 'flexible filtering.' This is specific and action-oriented. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like search_records, but the 'custom module' scope provides a clear boundary.

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 description implies the use case: retrieving records from custom modules with optional filters. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate. Because it doesn't mention alternatives, it doesn't earn a 5, but it provides a solid contextual basis.

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