Api reference controls retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add what they don't cover. It does add one useful behavioral fact — that unauthorized related fields are masked — but does not explain which fields, when masking occurs, or what permissions drive it.

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 single short sentence contains no waste, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient concision. It omits the resource, the parameter, and return-value context that an agent needs.

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 one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should at least identify the resource and the ID semantics. It mentions masking but leaves the core retrieval contract and field-masking behavior unexplained.

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 `id` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so neither the schema nor the description clarifies format (e.g., UUID) or which object the ID refers to. With low coverage the description should compensate, 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 only 'Return a single object' and never names the resource (reference control) or the lookup key. It could describe any retrieve endpoint among the many siblings, so the agent must rely on the tool name rather than the description to know what is returned.

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 versus siblings such as reference_controls_list, reference_controls_object_retrieve, or reference_controls_cascade_info_retrieve. No prerequisites or selection criteria are stated.

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