Api representatives retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely new behavior: related fields are masked when the caller is unauthorized. It does not say whether masked fields are omitted or null, nor what authorization level is required, so the addition is real but incomplete.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the masking behavior is stated up front. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects omission rather than disciplined editing.

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 endpoint with no output schema, no parameter documentation, and a large set of near-duplicate sibling retrieve/list tools, the description should state the resource, the id format, and the shape of masked data. As written, an agent cannot confidently select or invoke it beyond guessing from the tool name.

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, so the description carries the full burden and says nothing about it. It does not clarify whether id is a UUID, integer-like string, or ref_id, which matters in this API where sibling endpoints use varied identifiers.

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 without naming the resource (representatives) or describing what a representative is. An agent must infer the subject from the tool name alone; the description does not distinguish it from the many other retrieve tools in the namespace.

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 versus the clearly related siblings such as representatives_list, representatives_object_retrieve, or representatives_cascade_info_retrieve. No preconditions, no exclusions, and no indication of what to do when a representative is not found.

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