Api risk matrices 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 adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that unauthorized related fields are masked in the returned object. It does not explain what those fields are or what authorization is required, but it does contribute meaningful behavior beyond the annotations.

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 description is one short sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded. Its brevity contributes to conciseness, though it also contributes to the completeness gap noted elsewhere.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry more of the return-value burden. It does disclose masking of unauthorized related fields, which helps, but it omits the resource name, the meaning of the id parameter, and the shape of the returned risk matrix. For a single-object retrieval endpoint, this is only minimally adequate.

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%, and the single required 'id' parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description does not explain that the id identifies a risk matrix, nor does it add any semantics for the lookup key. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but 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 states a generic retrieval behavior ('Return a single object') but never names the resource being retrieved. The risk-matrix identity comes only from the tool name/title, not from the description text. It is not a tautology, but it lacks the specific verb+resource clarity expected for a 4 or 5.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this retrieve endpoint versus alternatives such as risk_matrices_list, risk_matrices_object_retrieve, or other retrieval variants. It contains only a return-behavior statement, with no usage context or exclusions.

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