odoo_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Read' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid IDs. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a tool that interacts with a database system.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward read operation and gets directly to the point.

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 database read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the data returns in, how errors are handled, or any performance characteristics. Given the complexity of database operations and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides - it mentions 'specific fields' and 'by their IDs' which are already covered by the schema's field and ID parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Read specific fields') and resource ('from records by their IDs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from other Odoo tools like odoo_search (which searches) and odoo_get_fields (which gets field definitions), though it doesn't explicitly name these siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like odoo_search_read (which combines search and read) or odoo_get_fields (which retrieves field metadata). There's no mention of prerequisites, performance considerations, or typical use cases for reading by IDs versus searching.

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