Data: get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return shape ('all of one record's field values') in the absence of an output schema, and signals an access-control dimension by pointing to data_rls. It stops short of describing not-found/denied behavior, so it is not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then a compact routing clause. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated padding.

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 and the description compensates by stating what is returned; annotations cover the read-only safety profile and the required entity/id pair is documented in-schema. Minor gap: nothing about error behavior for a missing id or an RLS-denied record, which is relevant given the data_rls reference.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema (including how to find the id), so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the schema ('numeric id') and adds no format, range, or entity-name guidance beyond it.

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 ('Get a single record by ID') and immediately clarifies the lookup key ('numeric id'), which separates it from the list/search siblings. It also names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the conditions for the alternatives: use data_list with a filter when the id is unknown, search_query for text lookup, and data_rls for access/permission questions. This is a complete when-to-use / when-not-to-use routing block rather than an implied hint.

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