invoiceninja_get_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only added behavioral context is the 'reference/secondary' scope; it says nothing about auth requirements, not-found behavior, or record visibility. Adequate but not enriching beyond annotations.

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 action and scope; the entity enumeration is long but genuinely informative for scoping. No filler or repetition of the name/title.

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?

With no output schema, the description still gives the agent enough to pick the right entity and format, and annotations cover safety. Return-shape detail (markdown vs json semantics) is delegated to the schema, which is acceptable.

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%, so id, entity, fields and response_format are each documented in the schema, including the id pattern and format enum. The description's entity list merely mirrors the enum and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get) and resource (one reference/secondary record by id) and enumerates exactly which entity types are covered, which lets an agent separate it from primary-entity getters like get_client or get_invoice. The 'reference/secondary' framing is the key differentiator, though it is not stated as an explicit contrast to the sibling getters.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch a single non-primary record when you already have its id. There is no explicit when-to-use versus invoiceninja_list_records or the typed get_* siblings, and no prerequisites are named. Functional but leaves routing to inference.

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