Api organisation issues retrieve

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that unauthorized related fields are masked, but it does not explain the authorization conditions, what fields are affected, or what happens when the id is missing.

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 sentence with no wasted wording, but it is under-specified rather than well-structured: the resource being retrieved is not front-loaded, and the sentence leads with a generic 'single object'.

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 simple single-record retrieve with one required parameter and no output schema, the description should at least name the resource, explain the id parameter, and clarify masked fields. It supplies only a partial behavioral note, leaving the core retrieval semantics incomplete.

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 schema has one required id parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions the id or its expected format. For a retrieval endpoint, this leaves the only parameter completely unexplained beyond its name.

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 that it returns 'a single object' and does not identify the resource as an organisation issue. The verb/resource specificity comes entirely from the tool name, not from the description.

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 retrieve endpoint versus the sibling organisation_issues_list or organisation_issues_object_retrieve endpoints. It is not misleading, but it provides no selection context.

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