Get one record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not describe return shape, whether it errors on missing records, permission requirements, or what the `raw` flag changes about the response.

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 zero filler, which is structurally clean. It is arguably thinner than a tool spanning 18 resource types warrants, but no sentence is wasted.

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 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, a wide resource enum, no output schema, and a cryptic `raw` flag, the description leaves too much to inference. It never explains the resource scope, the raw mode, or what a successful vs. failed fetch looks like.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning — but it only restates that `id` is numeric. The `resource` enum (18 record types) and especially the `raw` boolean are unexplained, leaving an agent to guess what `raw: true` produces.

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?

"Fetch one Snipe-IT record by numeric id" supplies a concrete verb (fetch), a resource (record), and the lookup key (numeric id). The singular "one record" implicitly contrasts with the sibling `list`, though no sibling is named explicitly, so it sits below a fully distinguishing 5.

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 statement about when to use this versus `list`, `lookup`, `describe`, or `audit`. The only hint is the implied "use when you already have a numeric id," and no exclusions or prerequisites are given despite eleven closely related siblings.

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