agb_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 does so well: it enumerates the three outcome states (found/not_found/ambiguous), specifies that ambiguous results return candidates, lists the fields of a found record, and critically clarifies that source failures surface as tool errors rather than not_found — a distinction that prevents misreading failures as absence.

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?

Five tight sentences, each carrying a distinct piece of operational information, with the core purpose front-loaded and the error-handling caveat last where it is most likely to be read as an exception to the outcome list.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no prose, yet the description still names the outcome states and found-record fields, and it covers the failure-mode edge case that a schema alone cannot express. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds a non-obvious semantic constraint by noting that leading zeros in agbcode are preserved, which guards against the common pitfall of numeric coercion on an 8-digit code. The record_type retry semantics are also referenced in prose, reinforcing the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve one exact AGB registration') and scopes it as a single-record exact lookup, which cleanly separates it from the agb_search_* siblings. The leading-zeros clause signals the precision of the key being matched.

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 tells the agent what to do when the result is ambiguous (retry with record_type) and distinguishes exact retrieval from search. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the sibling search tools, but the 'one exact registration' framing makes the division of labor inferable.

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