read_record

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

With no annotations, the description fully owns behavioral disclosure. It reveals that omitting fields returns a short state list, that reading all fields can be slow or fail, that specific models are refused, and that amount_total is in the record's currency while amount_total_signed is the company-currency sum. These are non-obvious behaviors that prevent misuse.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, constraints, alternative usage, and a currency warning. It is structured with paragraphs and bolded warnings, front-loading the core purpose.

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?

Considering the 3 parameters, the output schema, and 18 sibling tools, the description covers all necessary context: when to use, when to avoid, parameter semantics, and gotchas. The output schema documents return values, so no further explanation is needed there.

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%, but the description compensates with thorough parameter explanations: model gets an example, record_id is defined, and fields is explained with its default behavior and constraints. This goes beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 opens with 'Read one record by id' — a specific verb and resource — and distinguishes itself from search_read by noting it reads a single record by ID. It also adds the 'named fields' pattern, clarifying the output format.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it states that account.move and account.move.line are refused and directs the agent to use search_read with a specific domain. It also warns against requesting all fields and explains the safe default when fields is omitted.

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