Fetch records through an adapter

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

Discloses side effects: makes read-only HTTP request, subject to API rate limits, Liquid throttles and surfaces 429s with retry hints. Describes return structure {records, data: [up to 100 mapped records], _meta}. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.).

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?

Description is thorough but could be slightly more concise. However, it is well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then side effects, then alternatives. Front-loaded with key info.

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?

Given 2 params, output schema exists, and annotations are rich, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, side effects, limitations, alternatives, and return structure. Complete for agent understanding.

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% (both params have descriptions). Description adds context: adapter_id required, endpoint optional and defaults. Adds value beyond schema by explaining defaults and usage context.

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 uses specific verb 'Fetch records' and resource 'connected adapter', emphasizes 'deterministic, no LLM call', and distinguishes from sibling tools like liquid_query and liquid_estimate.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to pull whole records; to filter/aggregate server-side... use liquid_query instead; to size a pull... call liquid_estimate first.' Also notes prerequisite of adapter_id from liquid_connect.

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