owned_records

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: no credits are consumed and results are capped at 100 records per page. That pagination and cost information is exactly what the agent needs and is not in the structured fields. It still doesn't describe ordering or whether the page cap interacts with pageSize.

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, each earning its place: purpose, cost model, and result limit. The most decision-relevant facts come first, with zero filler.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition leaves too much unknown: what q matches, what kind filters, what the list UUID references, default page behavior, and what a record contains. It is adequate for the cost/pagination story but not for correct invocation.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load and it says nothing about q, kind, list, or page. Only 'at most 100 records per page' loosely gestures at pageSize, and even that omits the 25/50/100 enum and the meaning of the 'list' UUID parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read previously unlocked records'), and the word 'previously' scopes it to already-unlocked data, which implicitly separates it from unlock_records and preview_records. It doesn't name siblings explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

'Read previously unlocked records' implies the usage context (existing unlocked data rather than fresh unlocks), and 'No record credits spent' reinforces that this is the free follow-up path. However, no alternative tool is named and there are no explicit conditions or exclusions telling the agent when to pick this over coverage, count_records, or preview_records.

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