Get record

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real behavioral content — the two underlying API calls, default expansion, and the significant redaction behavior (emails, phone numbers, dates, postcodes, NI/NHS numbers) that changes only with include_contact_details. It does not mention pagination or latency cost of the extra call.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then progressively discloses mechanics. Dense but nearly every clause carries information (the status enum list, the alternative routing, the redaction trigger). Slightly overlong in the embedded API path detail.

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 does the work of describing the return shape (steps with check status and latest review). It covers the main toggles and the routing to get_check, leaving only minor gaps like error behavior for missing IDs.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly, including defaults. The description restates the default expansion and the contact-detail/de-redaction effect, which reinforces but adds little syntax or edge-case meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One record by ID with its steps') and immediately scopes it against siblings by explaining what the default expansion yields. An agent can distinguish this from list_records and get_check 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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('Use get_check for a result breakdown'), which routes the agent away from this tool for detailed check analysis. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement for the collection-level siblings (list_records), but the context is clear.

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