find_content_record

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

Because no annotations are present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Find exact' communicates exact matching and the read-only tone of 'find' implies no mutation, but it does not disclose how multiple parameters interact, whether zero parameters are allowed, or what happens when no record matches.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes to understanding what the tool does and the identifiers it accepts.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the tool needs more context to be safely invokable. The description omits behavior on no match, the shape of returned records, and whether multiple provided criteria are ANDed or ORed.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description maps each property to its domain meaning: content slug, WordPress post ID, and recorded publication/social URL. This adds real value beyond bare property names, though it does not elaborate on optionality or combination rules.

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 clear action ('Find') and resource ('exact archive records') and enumerates three concrete lookup keys. It implies exact-match retrieval, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling get_content_record or search_content_archive, so it misses the top score.

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 says what the tool searches by but gives no when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives. With siblings like search_content_archive, verify_archive_record, and get_content_record, the agent is left to infer when this exact-record lookup is preferred.

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