Api chat questionnaire questions object retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that - no statement about permissions, scoping, or what the object payload contains - so it earns no credit for supplementary behavioral context.

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?

Seven words with no padding, but the content is a duplicate of the machine name rather than a front-loaded summary. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than effective concision.

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 one undocumented required parameter and no output schema, the description needed to explain the lookup key and the returned object. It provides neither, leaving the agent to guess at the resource identity and response shape.

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 single required 'id' parameter is documented nowhere. The description does not say whether the id is the question's UUID, a run id, or a composite key, nor any format constraints, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 is a verbatim restatement of the tool name, 'api_chat_questionnaire_questions_object_retrieve', with no verb/resource phrasing an agent can parse. It only weakly implies fetching a single questionnaire question object, and gives no indication of how it differs from the many sibling retrieve/list/object_retrieve variants for the same resource.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance at all and no mention of alternatives such as ciso_assistant_api_chat_questionnaire_questions_retrieve, _list, or _cascade_info_retrieve. The agent must infer the selection rule purely from the tool name suffix.

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