Api findings assessments retrieve

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that unauthorized related fields are masked, though it does not explain what masking means or what permissions are required.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Its brevity is efficient, though it comes at the cost of specificity handled in other dimensions.

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, the description should at least identify the returned resource and clarify the id parameter. Instead it only states that a single masked object is returned, leaving the resource and parameter semantics underspecified.

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 sole 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it never mentions the id or what kind of identifier is expected. This leaves the parameter's meaning entirely implicit.

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 states a generic retrieve behavior ('Return a single object') and adds a masking detail, but never identifies the resource as a findings assessment. An agent must rely on the tool name and title to know what object is being retrieved.

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 tool versus siblings such as findings_assessments_list or findings_assessments_object_retrieve. It also does not mention any prerequisite or condition for retrieval.

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