fetch_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one valuable behavioral detail: a missing record is reported via 'found=false' and is not treated as an error. This is useful context. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it explain the simulate_outage parameter's behavior. The description provides some behavioral clarity but leaves notable gaps.

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, direct, and front-loaded with the primary action. It avoids verbosity and includes only the most essential information. The key behavioral note about 'found=false' is presented efficiently. No wasted words.

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 fetch tool, the description covers the main action and the most important edge case (absent record). However, it omits any explanation of the 'simulate_outage' parameter, which is part of the tool's interface. While an output schema exists and relieves the description of detailing return values, the parameter gap remains. The description is adequate for basic usage but incomplete for full correct invocation.

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 implicitly clarifies that 'key' is the lookup identifier, but it offers no additional detail about the parameter's format or acceptable values. The 'simulate_outage' parameter is entirely unexplained—an agent cannot infer its purpose or effect from the description. Given the low coverage, this is a significant shortfall.

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 primary action: 'Look up a record by key.' This is a specific verb (look up) with a clear resource (record) and method (by key). It is immediately distinct from sibling tools like summarise_lengths and slow_operation, as those suggest different operations. No ambiguity.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to retrieve a record by its key) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusion conditions. It does not mention any context where this tool should be avoided or mention sibling tools. This qualifies as implied usage, which meets the minimum viable threshold.

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