Get custom object record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds no further behavior (e.g., error handling, return format, or required configuration). The description is consistent with the annotations but adds only the trivial notion of fetching by ID, which is already implied by the name. This meets the baseline for annotation-covered safety but adds little beyond that.

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, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the essential verb and object, and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool requires schemaKey and recordId, yet the description does not explain what schemaKey is or how to obtain it, nor does it describe the return value (no output schema). There is no mention of error behavior or prerequisites beyond the implicit ID. For a simple getter, this is a notable gap that could mislead an agent into calling it incorrectly.

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 only 33% (only locationId has a description). The description itself says 'by id' but does not clarify which parameter is the id, nor does it explain the required schemaKey parameter or its meaning. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving agents under-informed about the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('single custom object record') with a clear scope ('by id'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ghl_search_object_records (search) and ghl_get_object_schema (schema), making it immediately clear what this tool does versus alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., needing a schemaKey or locationId), and no mention of when not to use it. There is zero routing or context-setting information beyond the bare action.

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