record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: fuzzy-by-default matching, wildcard rules, facet return format, extraParams pass-back, image download output options (outPath/base64, maxWidth), and get's full-record semantics. No contradictions with 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?

The description is dense but organized by action with semicolon-separated clauses. It front-loads the resource identity and leads with the primary action (search). Though long, each clause contributes meaningful detail; minor formatting improvements (bullets per action) could enhance scannability, but nothing is redundant.

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 43 parameters, four actions, and no output schema, the description is unusually thorough: it covers search semantics, fuzzy matching, wildcard syntax, pagination, facets, image download options, and the citation workflow. Small gaps remain, such as date formats and explicit return structure, but overall an agent has enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 only 19%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It compensates by defining exactFields, facets, extraParams, collectionType, offset/count, recordId, outPath, maxWidth, and by stating the general rule that every field is fuzzy unless listed in exactFields. It does not individually document all 43 params, but it gives enough collective semantics to make most of them actionable.

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 opens with 'FamilySearch historical records' and enumerates four distinct actions (search, get, download_image, collections), each with a specific resource and purpose. It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like person, source, and place by naming the exact resource domain and action set.

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 provides extensive usage context: how to perform search, when to use exactFields vs fuzzy matching, how facets feed extraParams, and how to page with offset/count. It also routes citation workflow to source.create and source.attach. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool in favor of siblings like raw_request or note.

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