Api organisation objectives retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by revealing that unauthorized related fields are masked, which is a meaningful authorization-dependent behavior. It could go further by explaining what 'unauthorized' means or what errors occur, but it does contribute real contextual value.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It does not front-load the resource or operation, which makes it less useful for quick tool selection.

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 retrieve tool with no output schema, the description should clarify the resource, the required identifier, and the return shape. It only states that a single object is returned with masked fields and omits everything else an agent would need to invoke 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%, and the single required 'id' parameter is not described in the schema or the description. The description never mentions that an ID is needed or what kind of ID it is, leaving the parameter semantics entirely undocumented beyond the field 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 'Return a single object with unauthorized related fields masked,' which is a vague purpose: it never names the resource (organisation objective) or clarifies that it retrieves one by ID. An agent must infer the target from the tool name rather than the description, though the masking detail does add some specificity.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as organisation_objectives_list, organisation_objectives_object_retrieve, or organisation_objectives_retrieve. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routes mentioned.

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