Api questions retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: unauthorized related fields are masked, so the returned payload may be partial depending on the caller's permissions. It omits what happens when the id does not exist or is inaccessible (404 vs 403).

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 no filler or repetition. It is efficient but under-specified rather than wasteful, so no penalty for verbosity applies.

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, the description should at minimum identify the resource and note the permission/masking implications for consumers of the result. It conveys the masking caveat but never states what is being retrieved, leaving the fundamental question of the call unanswered.

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 a single required parameter 'id' with 0% schema description coverage; the schema gives only 'type: string'. The description neither names the parameter nor says which entity's id it is, though for a one-parameter retrieve the intent is inferable from the tool name. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a trivially small input contract.

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 in the tool name without naming the resource (questions) or the identifier semantics. The masking clause is behavioral detail, not a purpose statement. An agent must fall back on the tool name to know what object is being fetched.

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 tool versus alternatives. In a sibling set containing questions_list, questions_object_retrieve, questions_cascade_info_retrieve and questions_batch_action_create, the description offers nothing to distinguish a single-resource fetch-by-id from a list or an 'object' variant.

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