get_records_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses input format and the 30-ID limit, but does not specify behavior when some IDs are invalid (e.g., error vs. partial results). For a simple read tool, this is a noticeable gap, though the core behavior is clear.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' section is slightly redundant but adds clarity; no wasted words overall.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, parameter format, and limit. It lacks error-handling details, but that is a minor gap for such a simple tool. The output schema handles return value documentation.

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 compensate. It fully explains the record_ids parameter with format and example ('Comma-separated record IDs (e.g. "id1,id2,id3")') and adds the max 30 constraint, going well beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Get specific records by their IDs', which is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like get_records. It also adds detail about comma-separated IDs and a max of 30, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you have specific record IDs, contrasting with get_records which likely retrieves all records. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so a slight deduction.

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