Api privacy purposes retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious behavioral detail — that unauthorized related fields come back masked — which prevents an agent from treating missing fields as absent data. However, it doesn't clarify what 'unauthorized' means or how missing/forbidden ids are handled.

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 decision-relevant fact (masking) is front-loaded. Slight deduction because its brevity comes from omission rather than precision.

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-by-id tool with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description should at minimum name the resource and describe the identifier. It omits both, and says nothing about not-found or permission-denied behavior, leaving real gaps for an agent to call 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?

There is one required parameter ('id') with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never mentions the id, its format (integer, UUID, ref), or that it selects the purpose to retrieve. The single-parameter baseline of 4 is not met because coverage is zero and nothing is compensated.

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 states the action ('Return a single object') and the key modifier (masked fields), but never names the resource — it never says a privacy purpose. The agent must rely on the tool name to know what entity is being retrieved, which is the definition of a vague-but-inferable purpose.

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 on when to use this versus its many close siblings (privacy_purposes_list, privacy_purposes_object_retrieve, privacy_purposes_cascade_info_retrieve). The single-object phrasing hints at a by-id lookup, but no alternative, prerequisite, or exclusion is stated.

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