read_demo_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It only says 'Read' without disclosing the return format, error behavior for invalid IDs, or explicit confirmation that it is a read-only operation with no side effects.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the action and object. No filler or redundant details, making it highly efficient.

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 is simple (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), and the description states the basic purpose. However, because there is no output schema, the description should ideally mention what the agent can expect as a return value or whether an error is raised for missing records.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description ('Synthetic record identifier'). The tool description adds only 'numeric identifier,' which restates the schema's integer type without providing additional context or constraints.

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 ('Read') and resource ('synthetic demo record') with a clear scope ('by numeric identifier'). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like write_demo_note and send_demo_message, which involve writing and sending.

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?

Usage context is implied by the verb 'read' versus 'write' and 'send' in sibling names, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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