get-record-details

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds value by specifying 'detailed information for any record type', which hints at broader scope beyond basic retrieval, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. No unnecessary elaboration or redundancy is present.

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?

Given annotations cover safety and idempotency, and schema covers parameters fully, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and siblings offering similar functions, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or differentiation, leaving gaps in context for a retrieval tool.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying 'any record type' aligns with the resource_type enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Get detailed information for any record type' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information for any record type'), but it's vague about what 'detailed information' entails and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'get-detailed-info' or 'get-list-details'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-detailed-info', 'search-records', and 'fetch' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It leaves the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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