Api metrology custom metric samples object retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – no statement of what object is returned, whether authorization scoping applies, or what happens when the id does not exist.

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 that brevity is under-specification rather than concision – the only content is a restatement of the machine identifier, so no sentence conveys information an agent could not already read off the tool name.

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-by-id endpoint with no output schema, the description should at minimum say what resource is returned and what the id refers to. Neither is present, so the definition is not sufficient on its own even though annotations supply the read-only safety profile.

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, and the description does not say what kind of id it is (UUID, integer-as-string, composite key) or where to obtain it. The single sentence carries no parameter meaning at all.

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 swapped for spaces: 'api_metrology_custom_metric_samples_object_retrieve'. It restates the identifier rather than explaining in plain language that it fetches a single custom metric sample by id, and it offers no differentiation from sibling tools such as ..._custom_metric_samples_retrieve, ..._list or ..._object_retrieve used by other resources.

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 versus ..._custom_metric_samples_retrieve, ..._custom_metric_samples_list, or ..._custom_metric_samples_for_object_retrieve (a sibling pattern that exists for builtin samples). No prerequisites or context are given; the agent must infer everything from the name.

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