Api ebios rm ro to retrieve

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that unauthorized related fields are masked in the returned object. It does not explain authentication requirements, error behavior, or the extent of masking.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted clauses. It is concise and directly states the return behavior, though it front-loads a generic 'single object' rather than identifying the EBIOS RM RO/TO resource.

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, the description should at minimum identify the object type and clarify how the id parameter is used. It only notes masking of unauthorized related fields, leaving the resource identity and parameter meaning implicit.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, id, with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain that id identifies the object to retrieve. It adds no meaning beyond the bare schema field name.

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 only that it returns a single object and masks unauthorized related fields. It never names the resource being retrieved, so the agent must infer the object type from the tool name rather than the description.

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 retrieve tool versus siblings such as the list, object_retrieve, or cascade_info operations. The description does not state any prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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