get_record

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about 'source-backed' content and 'bounded text pagination', but it does not mention error behavior, return format, or pagination boundaries.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it is so terse that it omits details the schema does not cover.

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 tool with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the pagination parameters or what an agent should expect from the returned record, leaving gaps that annotations alone do not fill.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain the three parameters. It only gestures at 'search ID' and 'bounded text pagination' without naming offset or max_chars, explaining their defaults, or clarifying how pagination interacts with record size.

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 ('Read') and resource ('source-backed memory record') and clarifies the lookup key ('by search ID'). It distinguishes the tool from retrieval siblings like get_facts or get_context_brief, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

'By search ID' implies the tool is used after a search operation, giving some contextual usage guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_facts, get_evidence_bundle, or search_memory, and no exclusions are provided.

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