Api privacy data contractors retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: related fields the caller is not authorized to see are masked in the result, meaning the payload may be incomplete by design. It does not say what triggers masking or which fields, but it is a real behavioral disclosure.

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 filler, and the most surprising fact (masked fields) is not buried. It is efficient, though it is short partly because it omits necessary content rather than because it is dense.

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 retrieve tool with no output schema and an undocumented id parameter, the description omits what entity is being returned and what fields it contains. The masking note is helpful but leaves the caller unable to predict the response shape or confirm it is reading a data contractor.

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 exactly one required parameter (`id`) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or its expected format. Unlike the high-coverage baseline case, the description must compensate here and it does not.

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 it returns "a single object" but never names the resource; the fact that this retrieves a data contractor is only inferable from the tool name. With siblings like privacy_data_contractors_object_retrieve and _list present, the description does nothing to distinguish this tool from near-identical neighbors.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of how this differs from privacy_data_contractors_object_retrieve or the list endpoint. An agent must guess that it fetches one contractor by id, and cannot tell why two retrieve variants exist.

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