Api policies owner retrieve

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

The description says the resource can be 'viewed or edited', implying write capability, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. That is a direct contradiction. It also omits what the endpoint returns and that it is a zero-parameter, open-world read.

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 padding and nothing buried. Its brevity is not the problem — the problem is that the one sentence carries incorrect and non-specific content.

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 no parameters, the description is the only source of meaning, and it fails to say what a policies-owner retrieve returns (owners of policies, presumably user/team references) or how it relates to sibling endpoints. The boilerplate leaves the agent unable to call it correctly or confidently.

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 no parameters (0 required, 0 optional), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description neither helps nor hurts here.

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 generic Django REST Framework boilerplate: 'API endpoint that allows applied controls to be viewed or edited.' It does not name the actual resource implied by the tool name (policies / owner), so an agent cannot tell what this endpoint retrieves or how it differs from ciso_assistant_api_policies_object_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_policies_retrieve. The mismatch between 'applied controls' and 'policies owner' actively misdirects.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is mentioned. With dozens of sibling policies endpoints (object_retrieve, retrieve, list, updatables, owner_retrieve), the description provides zero routing signal, leaving selection entirely to guesswork from the tool name.

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