Api security advisories retrieve

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description does add real behavioral context — related fields are masked when the caller is not authorized — which is not derivable from annotations or schema. However it says nothing about error behavior for a missing/forbidden id or which fields are considered 'related'.

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 no hedging, so structure is fine. But brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency — the sentence omits the resource and the parameter entirely.

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?

With no output schema and an undocumented id parameter, the description should say what record is returned, what the id refers to, and how masking affects the response. It only supplies the masking note, so an agent cannot confidently call it or interpret the result shape.

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 must carry the meaning. It never mentions id, its expected format, or whether it is the advisory's numeric/UUID/ref identifier, leaving a genuine gap.

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 it returns a single object, but never names the resource (security advisories) — that identity comes only from the tool name. Its one distinguishing statement is about masking unauthorized fields, which is helpful behavior but not a purpose statement, and it does not differentiate itself from the sibling ciso_assistant_api_security_advisories_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over ciso_assistant_api_security_advisories_object_retrieve, list, or autocomplete. 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.