Api metrology metric definitions retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that related fields the caller is not authorized to see are masked in the response — but says nothing about how the object is addressed, whether a missing id errors, or what the masked response looks like.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being efficient; it front-loads a non-essential detail (masking) instead of the operation itself.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe the returned entity, but it only says 'a single object'. For a retrieve endpoint the agent needs to know what it is fetching and what the masked fields imply; both are missing.

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 a single required 'id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what the id identifies (presumably a metric definition), its format, or that it is the lookup key. With low coverage, the description should compensate but 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 says only 'Return a single object' and never names the resource; the agent must read the tool name to learn this retrieves a metrology metric definition. It describes an output nuance (masked fields) rather than the operation's purpose, so it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as metric_definitions_retrieve or metric_definitions_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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling retrievers (object_retrieve, cascade_info_retrieve, list, provider/category endpoints). No prerequisites, permissions, or exclusions are given.

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