Api requirement nodes retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: unauthorized related fields are masked in the response, which tells the agent the payload may be redacted. It stops there, saying nothing about which related fields or what the object contains.

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 short sentence with no filler, so it is concise. But the brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight editing, so the one sentence does not earn its place as a sufficient definition.

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 endpoint with no output schema and no param documentation, the agent needs to know what resource is fetched and roughly what comes back. The masking note is helpful, but the resource identity and payload shape are missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% on the single required 'id' parameter, so the description has to compensate and does not. It never says that the id identifies a requirement node, nor anything about id format or scope.

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 only states the return shape ('a single object'), which restates the 'retrieve' verb without naming the resource being retrieved. Nothing in the text says this fetches a requirement node; the resource is only knowable from the tool name, and there is no differentiation from the sibling requirement_nodes_object_retrieve.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely named alternatives (requirement_nodes_object_retrieve, requirement_nodes_cascade_info_retrieve, requirement_nodes_list). The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the by-id fetch.

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