get_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: links are not verified or downloaded, and a link footprint does not prove local data coverage — an important caveat about how to interpret the result.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded ahead of the interpretive caveat. Every clause adds information.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotations, the definition covers purpose plus the one interpretive caveat an agent needs. It stops short of stating what happens on an invalid or missing ID, which is the only notable gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does: record_id must be an 'exact returned ID', clarifying it is an identifier previously returned by a lookup rather than an arbitrary string or name. No format example or error behavior is given, but the core semantic constraint is present.

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) and resource (a record) plus the exact content returned: Dublin Core metadata, resource links, and bounding boxes. The phrase 'by its exact returned ID' signals this is a fetch-by-identifier lookup distinct from search_records, though it never names that sibling outright.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent infers it should call this after search_records has produced an ID. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so an agent must reason about the relationship to search_records on its own.

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