Get database record

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial output behavior beyond the annotations: normalized enum labels and reference names, per-collection revision and per-entry fingerprints, note tags, unmodeled plugin fields, and the detailed=true native JSON. Missing-record error behavior is not covered, but with annotations this is a rich behavioral disclosure.

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 dense and fragment-style, with no wasted filler and every clause carrying information. It is appropriately sized, though front-loading return shape before the basic retrieval action slightly hurts scanability.

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?

No output schema exists, so describing the return shape is important, and the description does that well. However, it omits an explicit retrieval-action statement, error behavior for missing records, and routing to alternative list/search tools, leaving notable gaps for a three-parameter lookup tool.

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 description coverage is 33%, so the schema alone does not explain all parameters. The description adds meaning for detailed (true includes native JSON) and for id omission when category is system, but it does not define id semantics beyond that conditional omission or expand on category values beyond the enum.

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 opens by describing the returned normalized record rather than stating that it retrieves a single record by category and optional id. The tool name and category enum make the intent inferable, but the description itself gives no clear verb+resource statement and does not distinguish it from database_list_records or database_search_records.

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 guidance is the conditional note "For system omit id." There is no explanation of when to call this tool instead of database_list_records, database_search_records, or other get_* siblings, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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