Api chat questionnaire runs retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: unauthorized related fields are masked in the response, telling the agent to expect redacted data. It does not say what happens when the id is missing or unauthorized, so it is only a partial gain.

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, tight sentence with no filler, though it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than being efficiently informative. The masking clause is the only substantive content and arrives without setup.

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 no output schema and no annotations describing the response shape, the description should say what fields come back, what masking implies, and how errors (404/403) manifest. It provides none of that, leaving the agent unable to predict the response or handle failures for a simple but opaque single-object fetch.

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%, so the description bears the full burden for the single required 'id' parameter, yet it says nothing about what the id identifies or its format. The masking behavior mentions 'related fields' but never ties it to how relationships are resolved from the id.

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 only says it will "return a single object" – it never names the resource (a chat questionnaire run) or says what that object represents. Only the tool name and title carry that information, so the sentence essentially restates the 'retrieve' verb in 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many similar siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_chat_questionnaire_runs_object_retrieve, _list, or _cascade_info_retrieve. An agent has no way to know which retrieval variant is appropriate from the description alone.

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