Api entity assessments retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: unauthorized related fields are masked in the response, which tells the agent to expect redacted nested data rather than errors. It says nothing about what happens when the id is unknown or inaccessible.

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, front-loaded with the return shape and ending with the most informative clause about masking. Nothing is padded, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing content rather than over-explaining.

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 one-parameter retrieve tool with no output schema, the description should at least identify the resource being fetched and the nature of the id. It covers only the masking behavior, leaving the core identity of the object and its lookup key undocumented.

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 parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it. It never says the id is an entity-assessment identifier, nor its format (UUID vs ref_id), so the agent must guess what value to supply.

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 returns "a single object" – the resource (entity assessment) appears solely in the tool name, so the description itself is close to a tautology. It never distinguishes this from the sibling ciso_assistant_api_entity_assessments_object_retrieve, and an agent cannot tell which of the two retrieve-style tools is intended.

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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites (permissions, entity scoping), and no mention of when to prefer the sibling list or object_retrieve variants. The only implicit signal is "single object", which the agent must infer from the return phrasing.

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