get_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'complete details' but does not elaborate on output format, pagination, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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 very short (one phrase) and to the point. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more structured, e.g., by including a sentence on the 'fields' parameter.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It tells what the tool does but does not specify the return structure or any limitations.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantics beyond 'by sys_id'. With schema coverage high, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'record by sys_id', indicating it fetches a single record. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_incident or get_user by targeting any table via the 'table' parameter.

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?

While the description implies general-purpose record retrieval, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over dedicated get_* tools (e.g., get_incident, get_user). No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative suggestions are provided.

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