get_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered externally. The description's only added content is a field list, which duplicates the output schema rather than disclosing anything new (auth needs, not-found behavior, rate limits).

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler, though the trailing field enumeration is partly redundant with the output schema.

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 values need not be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, the description is thin on the surrounding context that matters for a lookup tool, such as what happens when the ID does not resolve.

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 0% and record_id has no documentation in the schema, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It partially compensates by revealing the expected 'gld:<UUID>' identifier format, but says nothing about validity, casing, or failure modes.

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 (Get) and resource (a gld:<UUID> record), and enumerates the payload the caller gets back (act number, act/event dates, source, relatives). It is reasonably distinguishable from search_acts, though the cryptic 'gld:<UUID>' token is never explained.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus search_acts or resolve_act_scan, and no stated prerequisite that a known record ID is required. The agent must infer the retrieval-by-ID use case on its own.

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