Api reference controls object retrieve

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

The description says the endpoint allows reference controls to be 'viewed or edited', yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. That phrasing implies a write capability the annotations deny, creating confusion about what the tool actually does; no additional context (auth, return shape, single-vs-collection) is provided beyond the contradiction.

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?

It is one short sentence with no padding, so nothing is wasteful, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — brevity comes at the cost of all useful information.

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 retrieval tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description should establish that it fetches a single reference control by id and something about the result. Instead it offers boilerplate that could describe nearly any CRUD endpoint in this API.

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 single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it or its format. The parameter name is self-explanatory, which keeps this above 1, but the description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 names the resource ('reference controls') but the verb is the vague boilerplate 'viewed or edited', which merely restates the title and the '_object_retrieve' suffix. Nothing distinguishes it from the ~15 sibling reference_controls tools (list, retrieve, category, provider, update, etc.), so an agent cannot tell which one to pick.

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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as reference_controls_list or reference_controls_retrieve. The agent is left to infer everything 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.