Read a record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the response includes every field plus a 'related' section of connections each with counts, and notes that the web page shows only the counts. It stops short of 5 only because pagination/volume limits on the related data are not addressed.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent sentence carries information (return shape, page behavior, share workflow). It is somewhat dense and the enumeration of related categories is wordy, but nothing is redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so (fields plus related connections with counts). A read-only tool with full annotation coverage and 100% schema coverage needs little more, though the shape of the 'related' entries and the 'show' key semantics remain only loosely specified.

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 parameters (id, type enum) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the id lookup pattern and the /t/<type>/<id> form, adding no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Read one record with every field, by id', and immediately contrasts with the collection-style siblings by being a single-record fetch. It also previews the payload (field content plus 'related' connections), so an agent knows exactly what this returns versus what find_records or search would.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use trigger: 'Use it before answering from what a record says', plus a second workflow rule for when to surface a page link with a connection open. It does not explicitly name an alternative (e.g. find_records for discovery) or state when not to call it, so it stops short of the top band.

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