Get Record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description does not confirm this is safe/non-destructive, nor does it describe error behavior (e.g., record not found), authentication requirements, or whether all fields are returned.

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 that is front-loaded with the action verb. There is no redundant or wasteful text. However, given the absence of annotations and the presence of behavioral gaps, the description borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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?

The description covers the basic operation but leaves gaps in behavioral context appropriate for a data retrieval tool with no annotations. While the output schema handles return value documentation, the description omits error handling, environment selection implications, and field expansion behavior.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents all three parameters including examples. The description merely references 'entity name (plural)' and 'ID' which parallels the schema without adding syntax details, validation rules, or usage patterns beyond what the schema provides.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('record'), and specifies the lookup method ('by entity name and ID'). The word 'specific' hints at single-record retrieval, distinguishing it from sibling 'query-records', but it lacks explicit differentiation from similar getters like 'get-entity-metadata'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'query-records' (for searching multiple records) or 'get-entity-metadata' (for schema information). No prerequisites, error conditions, or usage constraints are mentioned.

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