Get Records

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

Annotations already establish this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: results are raw samples that may come from multiple sources and can overlap, range-intersection semantics, automatic endpoint selection, and that returned timestamps include time zones. It omits pagination/volume limits, so it stops just short of a 5.

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-loads the core action in the first sentence, then adds scoping and routing detail. Every sentence earns its place, though it is denser than strictly necessary and could be tightened slightly.

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?

An output schema exists so return format need not be explained, and the description still covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: data_type sourcing, time-range semantics, the get_time_series alternative, and timezone translation. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the '<BaseType>/<uuid>' format for data_type IDs and the rule that records overlapping the window are included. It says little extra about fulcra_userid, keeping it from a 5.

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 (Retrieve) plus resource (the raw records of any data type) and scope (during a time period). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_time_series by contrasting raw samples with calculated per-interval values, so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the alternative (get_time_series) and the condition that selects it (calculated per-interval values of numeric data types). It also routes the agent to get_data_catalog for discovering valid data_type IDs, giving clear when-to-use and where-to-find-input guidance.

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