get_record

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower; the description earns credit by detailing exactly what the read returns (scope note, hierarchy, reference units, page-image URLs). It does not mention caching, freshness, or pagination behavior, though the cache/refresh semantics are handled by the schema.

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 action and identifier, then the returned payload, then the usage trigger. No filler or repetition of the 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the four payload categories an agent would care about. Combined with the fully-covered input schema and the read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, including a thorough explanation of the refresh flag and the example NAID format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only 'by NAID' and no extra syntax or constraints on the identifier, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one Catalog record in full, by NAID') and enumerates the payload (scope and content note, hierarchy, holding reference units, page-image URLs). This clearly separates it from siblings like search_records and get_record_images without needing to open 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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this once a search has given you a NAID worth pursuing,' which implicitly routes the agent from a search sibling to this fetch. It lacks an explicit when-not clause or a named alternative (e.g., browse_children for hierarchy traversal), so it stops short of a 5.

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