Api journeys object 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 nothing beyond that — no detail on what 'object' retrieval returns, whether the id is a UUID, or whether access is scoped. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but zero added context caps this at 2.

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 token with no front-loaded statement of purpose. This is under-specification rather than conciseness — it is short only because it says nothing.

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 an object-retrieval endpoint with no output schema, no annotation-level detail, and an undocumented id parameter, the description must carry the entire informational burden and does not. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is present.

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, and the description provides no compensating detail such as the id format (UUID) or which entity it addresses. The one-word description leaves parameter meaning entirely inferred from the schema's type alone.

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 verbatim — 'api_journeys_object_retrieve' — so it merely restates the title rather than stating what the tool does. An agent learns only that it retrieves an 'object' related to 'journeys', with no verb+resource specificity that distinguishes it from siblings like api_journeys_retrieve or api_journey_steps_object_retrieve.

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 alternatives. With siblings such as api_journeys_retrieve, api_journeys_list, and api_journeys_object_retrieve, the definition gives an agent no way to choose between them.

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