get_record_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It says "Return" implying read-only, and notes it is a deliberate duplicate, but does not explicitly state safety, auth requirements, or idempotency. It adds the context of the duplicate resource, which is useful.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes a relevant implementation note without fluff.

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 parameterless schema getter, the description fully covers its purpose, content, and the reason for existing (duplicate of a resource). No additional context is needed given the simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (fields, types, rules), satisfying the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb ("Return") and identifies the resource ("asset-record.json contract") and the content (fields, types, rules). It also distinguishes from siblings like read_record by focusing on schema rather than data or finalization.

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 states a specific use case ("a client with no resource support") and points to an alternative resource (`record://schema`). It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools but the purpose is clear enough.

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