get_object

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: it returns the record 'as stored' (raw, unshaped), and that this raw form is preferable prior to an edit. It stops short of describing key-filtering behavior or the absent output shape.

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 tight sentences; the core capability is front-loaded and each following sentence adds a distinct routing or behavioral fact. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 generic getter with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, routing, and the nature of the return (raw vs shaped), which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor gap: it says nothing about how the returned record is rendered or its field structure, though no output schema exists to cover that.

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 object_type, ref, and keys are already documented in the schema. The description only hints at the object_type domain (places, media, notes, citations) and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Read) and resource (any object's raw record) and explicitly carves out the subset of objects without shaped getters. It also names the sibling getters (get_person, get_source) it is differentiated from, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('what you want before editing one') and when-to-prefer-an-alternative ('for people and sources the shaped getters ... are easier to read'). The condition selecting the alternative sibling is spelled out, not inferred.

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