Get a record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: what the two response modes actually return, including that detailed includes linked records with ids plus created/updated timestamps. It omits error behavior for unknown ids.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose, sequencing, then return modes. Every sentence carries content, with no restatement of the title. The final sentence is dense but still readable.

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?

With only two parameters, a 100% schema and a declared output schema, this is close to complete. It explains the mode tradeoff an agent needs in order to choose correctly. Only edge cases such as invalid id or not-found handling are absent, and those are minor.

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. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by spelling out what concise counts (linked records) and what detailed expands to (linked records with ids, created and updated times, with a person's company / company's deals as concrete examples).

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Fetches one record") and enumerates the record types it covers (company, person, deal, custom object row), which helps an agent distinguish it from list/lookup. It does not explicitly contrast its own return with heliyos_records_lookup, so the sibling boundary is implied rather than stated.

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?

It gives an explicit sequencing rule: call it after heliyos_records_list or heliyos_records_lookup yields an id. That routes the agent correctly among the 70 siblings. It does not state when not to use it (for example, when a timeline or events call is more appropriate).

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