raynet_get_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses exact return shapes for both found and non-existent records, states that a missing ID is not an error, and explains the ID-gap rationale. This makes the tool's runtime behavior predictable without an output schema.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; the main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the edge-case behavior follows logically. Every sentence contributes operational information.

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 simple two-parameter fetch tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is complete: it covers both success and non-success branches, existence-checking semantics, and the reason for ID gaps. An agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%, but the description adds meaning to record_id by tying it to a specific by-ID lookup and noting that ID numbering has gaps. It does not detail the entity enum values or otherwise compensate fully for the missing property descriptions, though the enum values are fairly self-explanatory.

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 an explicit verb ('Fetches') and a precise resource ('details of a specific record by ID'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like raynet_search or raynet_full_scan that operate on broader queries or scans. The by-ID scope is 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?

Clear usage context: use when you have an entity type and a record ID and want that record's details. It also explicitly endorses using the tool for existence checking via the found:false contract. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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