Api organisation issues origin 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 without the description. The description contributes nothing beyond that — it says nothing about what is returned, whether the response depends on tenant context, or what 'origin' means for this resource.

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 a single identifier with no wasted words, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded purpose statement or any structure an agent could parse.

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 and an openWorld hint, the description is the only place to learn what this retrieve call returns, yet it supplies nothing. The annotations carry the read-only safety signal, but an agent still cannot tell what data comes back or why this differs from the plain organisation_issues_retrieve endpoint.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no semantics for the description to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Nothing here is misleading on that front.

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_organisation_issues_origin_retrieve"), so it only restates the title rather than stating in prose what the tool does. An agent can decode the slug into 'retrieve the origin of organisation issues', but there is no sentence describing the resource, scope, or the meaning of 'origin'.

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 this endpoint should be called, no prerequisites, and no mention of any of the numerous siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_organisation_issues_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_organisation_issues_cascade_info_retrieve. Nothing helps an agent choose between them.

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