Api privacy data breaches retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's one real contribution is disclosing that 'unauthorized related fields' are masked — meaningful for a privacy/GDPR record where the agent should expect redacted or absent fields. It does not say which fields, or what happens when the id is missing or unauthorized.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler — appropriate in size for a trivial get-by-id tool. It is under-specified rather than verbose, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 one-parameter lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description still omits the resource being fetched, what the id identifies, and how failures (not found vs unauthorized) surface. The masking note is the only substantive content, leaving the agent under-informed about what a successful call actually returns.

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 one required parameter, 'id', and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema carries no meaning beyond the name and type. The description never mentions the parameter, leaving the agent to guess that it is the breach identifier rather than, say, a processing or entity id.

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,' which restates the 'retrieve' verb from the name without naming the resource (a privacy data breach) or distinguishing it from the many sibling readers such as ciso_assistant_api_privacy_data_breaches_object_retrieve, _list, or _cascade_info_retrieve. An agent must infer the subject from the tool name rather than the prose.

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?

'Return a single object' implies a fetch-one-by-id operation, but there is no statement of when to use this versus the object_retrieve, list, or cascade_info variants, and no prerequisite or error-condition guidance. The agent gets only the weakest implicit usage cue.

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