Api metrology builtin metric samples object retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description contributes nothing additional — no note on what the sample contains, whether it 404s for unknown ids, or how 'object' scoping differs from the plain retrieve sibling. 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?

It is short, but short by under-specification rather than by efficiency. There is no front-loaded statement of action or scope to anchor the agent.

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, no parameter documentation, annotations carrying the entire behavioral load, and an identifier-only description, an agent has essentially no basis for deciding to call this tool or for interpreting its result.

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 one required parameter (`id`) with 0% schema description coverage — its type string is the only clue. The description adds no meaning about whether this is a database id, a metric sample UUID, or a composite key, so the parameter remains ambiguous.

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 echoed back in snake_case ('api_metrology_builtin_metric_samples_object_retrieve'), which is a tautology rather than a statement of purpose. An agent learns nothing beyond what the identifier already encodes, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like `..._builtin_metric_samples_retrieve` or `..._for_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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Given the dense cluster of near-identical metrology sample endpoints (list/retrieve/object_retrieve/for_object_retrieve), the absence of any routing guidance is a serious gap.

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