ocr_get_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Retrieve') but does not explain what happens when no matching record exists, whether 'processed' implies status filtering, what fields are returned, or whether it is strictly non-destructive.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words; it states the core purpose immediately. However, it is concise to the point of omitting important context, so it earns only partial credit.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, this description is incomplete. An agent cannot confidently determine which identifier to pass, how the two optional parameters interact, or what a successful or failed lookup returns.

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 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter. Both invoice_id and invoice_number are optional, but the description provides no clue whether one is required, whether they are interchangeable, or what values are expected beyond their schema types.

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 action ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('processed invoice record'), so the tool's job is clear. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings like ocr_list_records or ocr_review_record, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as ocr_list_records or ocr_review_record, and no mention of when the two identifier parameters should be used. The context is only implicit: it returns a single processed invoice record.

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