freshbooks_get_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about id handling: numeric ids are the norm and string ids are accepted as text. This goes beyond the schema by explaining why strings are allowed, which helps agents avoid conversion errors. No contradiction 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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every clause contributes meaning: the scope (any resource), the identification method (name and id), and the id type nuance. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple read tool, the description is mostly adequate, but it misses the relationship to the numerous sibling getter tools. Without usage guidance, an agent might not know whether to pick this generic tool or a dedicated one. The output schema is absent, but the description is not expected to detail returns. The gap in usage context lowers completeness.

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%, with both parameters described. The description's note about numeric ids and string acceptance largely restates the schema's anyOf definition, adding only a brief rationale. It does not explain the resource enum values or the 'alphanumeric accountId' remark, so it contributes little beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a single record from any FreshBooks accounting resource by name and id.' The verb and resource are specific, and the 'any resource' scope distinguishes it from the sibling-specific getters, though it does not explicitly say it's a fallback for resources without a dedicated getter.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this generic getter versus the many resource-specific getter tools listed as siblings (e.g., freshbooks_get_invoice, freshbooks_get_client). There is no mention of preferred alternatives or conditions like 'use only for resources without a dedicated getter.'

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