Api applied controls retrieve

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations: unauthorized related fields are masked in the response. It doesn't explain what counts as unauthorized, whether missing/unpermitted ids error out, or anything about response shape, so the added value is limited.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the masking behavior is stated up front. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 retrieve-by-id tool with no output schema and an undocumented id parameter, the description is too thin: it never states which object type is returned or that the id identifies an applied control. The masking note is the only substantive detail, leaving the agent to guess at everything else.

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?

One required parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — no format (UUID vs. integer string), no source for obtaining it. This is a case where the description needed to compensate for the schema gap and doesn't.

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 says it returns 'a single object' but never names the resource (applied controls) or states that it fetches by id — that only comes from the tool name. It also doesn't distinguish itself from close siblings like applied_controls_object_retrieve or applied_controls_list. An agent can infer the intent only by reading the name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this retrieval versus the many sibling retrieve/list/object_retrieve variants for applied controls. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a known id) or exclusions.

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