Read master data record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only, no undo step' is largely a restatement of what structured data provides. The description adds no behavioral context the annotations lack, e.g. that from/to scope only absences and shift cycles, or what happens for an unknown id/type.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a dense but useful enumeration of per-type payloads, closing with the read-only note. One sentence is long and list-heavy, but no sentence is filler.

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 explanation, and the annotation set covers the safety profile. The description is adequately complete for a single-record read, with only minor gaps: the from/to period semantics and how this tool differs from the other resource-pool read tools.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add semantic value by mapping type values to returned content (person/team/customer), but it only covers three of the nine enum values (role, material, machine, machine_role, project_category, project_status, project_customer are unaddressed), and it never mentions the from/to period windows at all.

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 clear verb+resource ('Reads the complete master data of one object') and enumerates what each object type returns (person, team, customer fields), so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not name or differentiate itself from the nearby siblings rillsoft_resource_pool_get and rillsoft_resource_pool_catalog_list, so an agent must infer which of these three resource-pool reads to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: read one object's master data. There is no explicit when-to-use versus rillsoft_resource_pool_get (pool-level read) or the *_resource_update/create/delete siblings, and no prerequisites such as needing an id obtained from catalog_list. The schema hint on 'id' partially compensates but the description itself offers no routing guidance.

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