Recall: Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real interpretive context: that every result is cited, what `owner` true means, and how `status_basis` values (user/audit/assistant/verify) should be read, plus an explicit warning never to present assistant, agent_report or audit records as the owner's decision.

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 front-loaded with the highest-value information (what comes back) and the later sentences carry distinct semantic payload rather than redundancy. It is dense but each clause adds a fact; only the back half reads as a slightly list-like dump of field semantics.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: summary, body, cited evidence, timeline, related records. It also covers the non-obvious status_basis semantics. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or how evidence_limit bounds results.

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 both `id` and `evidence_limit` are already documented in structured form. The description adds no format details (e.g. what happens on truncation or how evidence_limit interacts with the returned evidence list), so baseline 3 is correct.

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 opening clause 'One record in full: summary, body, every piece of evidence...' states the resource (a single record) and its scope (full detail, all evidence, timeline, related records), which contrasts with the broader search/ask siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling or the retrieval verb explicitly, so an agent gets the gist but not an explicit contrast with recall_source_excerpt or recall_search.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus recall_search, recall_ask, recall_source_excerpt or recall_timeline. The only hint at workflow is buried in the schema ('from any other recall tool'), and the description itself offers no conditions, prerequisites or exclusions.

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