get_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the endpoint pattern, restrictions for chart_of_accounts, and correct resource usage for bank accounts. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, error handling, or null handling for missing keys, which are relevant for a fetch operation.

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 two sentences, each essential. The first sentence defines the core operation, the second adds critical caveats and alternatives. No unnecessary words, well front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are documented), the description covers the key contextual points: endpoint pattern, resource restrictions, and sibling differentiation. It could mention error scenarios or authorization requirements for completeness, but is adequate for a simple get tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% parameter descriptions, but the description adds meaning by indicating that 'key' is a GUID and 'resource' refers to specific endpoints (e.g., 'bank_accounts' not 'bank_balances'). It does not list all possible resources or formats, but provides useful context 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 action ('Fetch one collection record by GUID') and the resource via a form endpoint, with specific examples (e.g., /customer-form/{key}). It distinguishes from siblings like list_records by focusing on single-record retrieval and provides special-case guidance for chart_of_accounts and bank accounts.

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 implicitly tells when to use this tool (to fetch a single record by GUID) and provides an alternative resource for bank detail. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare directly with siblings beyond 'list_records' being a different operation.

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