get_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to repeat safety. It adds context by mentioning 'bounded' (implying limit/offset behavior) and 'archive retrieval,' which goes beyond the annotations. 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for the limited content it provides, though the brevity contributes to the lack of substantive detail.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions in the schema, the description leaves critical gaps. The agent does not learn what version_id refers to, how limit/offset behave, or what the return format is. Annotations cover safety but not operational details, so the description is far from complete for safe and correct invocation.

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%, and the description makes no mention of the three parameters (version_id, limit, offset). The agent receives no guidance on what these mean or how to use them. The description entirely fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb (get) and resource (record), and adds context with 'bounded read-only archive retrieval.' It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_blob. The word 'bounded' hints at pagination but leaves some ambiguity about the exact record type.

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?

The description implies usage for read-only archive access but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'bounded' and 'read-only' cues provide some guidance but leave the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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