Api findings object 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. However, the description adds nothing at all beyond that: no indication of what object is returned, whether it 404s on missing IDs, or how it differs from the plain findings retrieve endpoint.

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 underscore-joined identifier: technically free of padding, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than concision. There is no front-loaded verb or resource statement an agent could act on.

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?

With no output schema, the description would need to explain what a 'findings object' payload contains, but it offers nothing. For a retrieve tool with one undocumented parameter and no return contract, this is completely inadequate.

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. It says nothing about whether the ID is a UUID, integer, or reference string, nor about scoping (e.g. per-perimeter or per-folder).

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 tool name with underscores removed: 'api_findings_object_retrieve'. It restates the identifier rather than stating what the tool does, so an agent gains nothing beyond guessing from the name that it retrieves a 'findings object'. It does not distinguish this from the many other *_object_retrieve siblings in the same 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 guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisite conditions, and no reference to alternatives such as ciso_assistant_api_findings_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_findings_object_retrieve vs ciso_assistant_api_findings_list, all of which appear in the sibling list and would need disambiguation.

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