get_object

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing that the return is the raw stored record rather than a shaped view, which is the key behavioral distinction motivating its use. It stops short of describing error handling for a missing ref or the effect of the keys field, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and its scope before the advice on alternatives. No sentence is redundant and the routing hint lands last where it is most useful.

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 read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope and the alternative-tool decision well. It leaves minor gaps around failure behavior for an unknown ref and how keys interacts with the 'raw record' promise, but nothing that would cause a misinvocation.

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%, so all three parameters (object_type, ref, keys) are already documented in the schema, including the 'handle or gramps_id' format and the comma-separated fields semantics. The description adds only the framing of 'raw record' versus a shaped getter and no additional parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Read any object's raw record') and immediately delimits scope by naming the object types it uniquely serves (places, media, notes, citations). It also distinguishes itself from the shaped getters get_person and get_source, so an agent can route correctly 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?

It gives an explicit use condition ('what you want before editing one') and names the alternatives with the condition that selects them ('for people and sources the shaped getters ... are easier to read'). The selection rule between get_object and its siblings is fully specified.

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