Api chat questionnaire questions retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior — unauthorized related fields are masked in the response. It stops short of saying which fields get masked or what happens on a missing/unauthorized id.

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?

One short sentence with no padding and the key behavioral fact front-loaded. The terseness is not the problem — the omission of subject matter is.

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 read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description still leaves the core question unanswered: what record is returned and what it contains. The masking note is the only substantive content.

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?

There is a single required 'id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — no mention of which id space (question id vs run id) or format. For a one-param tool this is a small but real gap, since 'id' is ambiguous across the questionnaire-runs/questions families.

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?

"Return a single object" restates the retrieve part of the name without ever naming the resource — it never says it returns a chat questionnaire question. The only added content, field masking, is useful but does not tell an agent what entity is being fetched.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no differentiation from the many sibling retrievers in the same family (questions_retrieve vs questions_object_retrieve vs questions_list vs questions_cascade_info_retrieve). The agent must infer selection 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.