Api metrology dashboard widgets 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 safety behavior is covered structurally. The description contributes nothing beyond this - it does not say what the retrieved widget object contains, whether it requires an existing id, or how it differs from the non-'object' retrieve variant.

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 short string with no waste, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than economy - it conveys no information beyond the 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?

With no output schema, one undocumented required parameter, and a large family of ambiguous sibling retrieve tools, the description leaves an agent unable to determine what this tool returns or how to call it correctly.

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 parameter 'id', so the description must compensate and it does not. It gives no hint that 'id' is the widget identifier or what format it takes, leaving the parameter entirely unexplained.

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 verbatim the tool name 'api_metrology_dashboard_widgets_object_retrieve', which merely restates the identifier (retrieve an api metrology dashboard widget object) without expanding on it. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling retrieve endpoints such as ciso_assistant_api_metrology_dashboard_widgets_retrieve or _list.

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 at all on when to use this tool versus alternatives, despite many near-identical siblings (widgets_retrieve, widgets_list, widgets_aggregation_retrieve, widgets_chart_type_retrieve). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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