Api privacy right requests object retrieve

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description says the endpoint allows right requests to be 'edited,' implying write capability. That directly contradicts the read-only annotation, and the description adds no other behavioral context.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted length, but its brevity comes at the cost of omitting the actual retrieve operation and including a misleading 'edited' clause.

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, annotations cover the read-only safety profile, but the description neither states that it fetches a single privacy right request by id nor resolves the view/edit contradiction. It is not complete enough for reliable selection.

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 schema has one required 'id' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description never explains that this is the privacy right request identifier. It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 mentions right requests and says they can be 'viewed or edited,' but the tool is an object retrieve-by-id endpoint. The 'edited' wording blurs the verb and does not clearly distinguish this from privacy_right_requests_retrieve, list, update, or partial_update siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this retrieve endpoint versus the list or update siblings, and no mention that an existing privacy right request id is required. The agent is left to infer all routing 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.