get_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it adds useful behavioral context: it identifies the endpoint pattern and resource-specific constraints. 'Fetch' clearly signals a read operation, though it stops short of describing error behavior or authorization needs, which are less critical here.

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 only three sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and caveats kept separate. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description explains both parameters and critical resource caveats. It does not enumerate all valid resource values, but the output schema and sibling list_resources tool fill that gap acceptably.

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?

In the absence of parameter descriptions, the description adds meaning by specifying that 'key' is a GUID and that 'resource' selects the collection, with explicit examples like resource=bank_accounts. While not exhaustive, it gives enough semantic grounding for both required parameters.

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 it fetches one collection record by GUID via a Manager form endpoint, giving a concrete example path. It distinguishes this from list-oriented tools and explicitly notes chart_of_accounts has no single form, which reinforces its purpose.

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 concrete guidance by noting chart_of_accounts has no single form and that bank/cash account detail should use resource=bank_accounts rather than bank_balances. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools like list_records, but the focus on one record by GUID implies the appropriate usage context.

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