Api findings assessments object retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing at all beyond that - no indication of access requirements, whether a 404 is likely, or what kind of payload comes back - which is the minimum expected when annotations carry the safety story.

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 text is short but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency: a single slug token with no front-loaded statement of purpose or scope. Nothing is wasted, but nothing is conveyed either.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description still needs to name the resource and the id source. Neither is present, so an agent cannot confidently call this rather than a sibling retrieve endpoint.

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% and the single required parameter 'id' is typed only as a string. The description does not state what entity the id identifies, what format it takes (slug, UUID, integer ref), or where an agent would obtain one, so the parameter remains fully opaque.

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 the raw endpoint slug repeated verbatim as the title, so it merely restates the name. It implies a read of a 'findings assessment' object but never says what that resource is or how it differs from the closely named siblings ciso_assistant_api_findings_assessments_retrieve, _list, or _object_retrieve variants used elsewhere in the namespace.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite information, and no mention of any alternative. With roughly a dozen sibling findings_assessments tools (list, retrieve, object_retrieve, metrics, cascade_info), an agent has no way to know which one to select from this description alone.

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