Api actors retrieve

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

The annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuine value beyond the annotations by disclosing that unauthorized related fields are masked, which is important behavioral context. However, it says nothing about not-found handling or permissions requirements.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

For a simple retrieve with annotations covering safety, the description leaves the two things it uniquely must supply – which resource is returned and what the id means – unaddressed, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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?

With a single required 'id' parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the burden but provides nothing – not the format, type semantics, or that the id identifies the returned object. It only implies a keyed lookup via "single object".

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 generic verb ("Return a single object") but never names the resource, so the agent must rely entirely on the tool name/title to know it returns an actor. It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling retrieve variants (actors_list, actors_object_retrieve, actors_cascade_info_retrieve).

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?

There is no indication of when to use this retrieve versus the sibling list, object_retrieve, or cascade_info tools. No prerequisites, no context, no exclusions – the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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