Api findings assessments md retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds zero behavioral context: not what markdown output looks like, not whether an assessment must exist, not how missing IDs are handled. It contributes nothing beyond the structured fields.

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?

It is trivially short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness; the single token conveys no front-loaded purpose, scope, or usage cue.

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 tool with no output schema, no parameter documentation, and dozens of near-identical siblings, the description should at minimum explain what is returned and how it differs from the standard retrieve. Nothing in it does so.

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 single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate with format, type of resource the ID refers to, or example values. It provides none of this, leaving the agent unsure what kind of identifier is expected.

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 literally the tool's own snake_case name, 'api_findings_assessments_md_retrieve', restated as a string. It implies a retrieval of a markdown representation of a findings assessment, but it adds no verb-plus-resource phrasing, no scope, and no distinction from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_findings_assessments_retrieve or _pdf_retrieve. This is tautology.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool versus the many sibling retrieve variants (findings_assessments_retrieve, _pdf_retrieve, _xlsx_retrieve, _object_retrieve, _list). An agent has no way to infer selection criteria from the description.

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