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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the read-only, non-mutating nature via 'read-only GET', which is a key behavioral trait. It does not detail error handling or edge cases, but for a simple fetch operation, the transparency is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every phrase ('Fetch', 'single', 'by GUID Id', 'read-only GET') contributes to clarity and utility.

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 single-record fetch with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage and safety aspects. It does not explain return format or error behavior, but the operation is simple enough that the description is largely complete, especially given the schema already documents all parameters.

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 100%, with each parameter having a meaningful description (e.g., id includes an example, expand and select are briefly defined). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already provides full coverage.

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 action (Fetch), the resource (Creatio record), and the exact identifier (GUID Id). The 'read-only GET' suffix further clarifies the operation and differentiates it from sibling tools like cretio_list_allowed_entities and creatio_query_records, which handle listing and querying, respectively.

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 wording 'single record by its GUID Id' gives clear context for when to use this tool – when you have a specific record ID. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context implies it is not for listing or multi-record queries, which are covered by siblings. This is a clear usage hint without explicit exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral nuance: if the allowlist is empty, all entities are readable. This adds context beyond a simple listing, though it does not describe the exact return format or pagination, which are minor for a metadata list.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a one-sentence edge case. Every word adds value without redundancy. This is exemplary 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?

Given low complexity, zero parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and a key edge case. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does, though lacking an explicit mention of return structure is a minor gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema provides complete coverage. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate. It accurately reflects that no parameters are required.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'Creatio OData entity sets' along with the context 'this server is permitted to read.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like creatio_query_records and creatio_get_record, which focus on records rather than metadata discovery.

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 as a discovery step before querying or getting records, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling names suggest a workflow, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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

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

Without annotations, the description explicitly discloses 'read-only GET', which is key behavioral information indicating no mutation. It does not mention that 'top' is clamped to 50 or other potential behaviors like pagination, but the read-only disclosure is valuable.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff: the first states purpose, the second gives usage guidance with an example. Properly front-loaded and concise.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, and includes a usage example. It does not describe the return format, but that is implied by 'records' and the OData context, and the schema fills in parameter details.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete OData filter example ('Number eq \'SR00042038\'') and reinforces that filter/orderby use OData syntax, which helps the agent construct valid parameter values.

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 tool queries records from a Creatio entity via OData (read-only GET), specifying the verb, resource, and method. It also distinguishes from siblings: creatio_get_record for a single record and creatio_list_allowed_entities for listing entities.

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?

It provides usage instruction for OData filter/orderby with an example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like creatio_get_record or creatio_list_allowed_entities. The context is implied rather than explicit about exclusions.

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