Api journey steps object retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered upstream. The description adds no context of its own — no note on what object is returned, whether ids are numeric or ref_ids, or what happens on a not-found id. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

There is nothing to trim, but the text is under-specified rather than concise — a single snake_case identifier is not a description. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing is stated.

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 tool with one required, undocumented parameter, no output schema, and a dense family of confusable siblings, the description is completely inadequate: it leaves the agent unable to tell which retrieve variant to pick or what the returned object contains.

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% for the single required 'id' parameter. The description does not clarify whether this is a database primary key, a ref_id, or a UUID, nor whether journey context is required. The schema only reveals type=string, so the description should have compensated and does not.

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 identifier re-underscored ('api_journey_steps_object_retrieve'), restating the name and title without stating a verb, resource, or scope in prose. An agent can infer 'retrieve a journey step object' only from the name itself; the description contributes nothing beyond it.

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. Critically, the sibling list contains near-identical operations (journey_steps_retrieve, journey_steps_list, journey_steps_object_retrieve), and the description gives no basis for choosing among them.

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