get_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: it requires an access token, it returns the index rather than the document image, and it explains the 'original' transcription semantics and FamilySearch-supplied dates/places.

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-loaded with the core verb+resource, then layered detail. Some prose is deliberately literary, but the paragraphs each carry behavioral weight (fields vs summary, index vs document, auth). Slightly long for a one-parameter read tool but no dead sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return shape in detail: named persons, indexed fields with original transcriptions, value/date/place per fact. Combined with auth and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result.

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 100% and there is a single required `ark` parameter, so the schema already carries the format and example. The description adds only the fact that record searches return one ark per hit, which is already implied in the schema description.

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 and resource ('Read one indexed record in full') and sharply distinguishes itself from search_records (which returns 'a persona'/summary) and from get_record_image ('still the index, not the document'). An agent can route without opening a 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?

Clearly frames the use case versus search (details the search summary loses) and names get_record_image as the alternative for reaching the original document. It does not spell out an explicit 'do not use this when...' exclusion, but the routing context is unambiguous.

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