Api settings global 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 without the description. The description adds no behavioral context — not what 'global settings' contain, not whether it requires admin privileges, not what happens with an unknown id.

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?

It is short, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness — the entire description is a single identifier with zero informational content. There is nothing to be front-loaded because nothing is said.

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 retrieval endpoint with one required parameter, no output schema, and no param documentation, the description leaves the agent without the minimal facts needed to call it correctly. Only the annotations provide any usable context, and those are structured fields rather than description content.

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% for the single required 'id' parameter, and the description says nothing about what the id identifies (an object PK? a singleton key?). With one undocumented parameter the description needed to compensate for the schema gap and 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 is just the tool name reworded ('api_settings_global_retrieve') and never states in prose what the tool does. It hints at retrieving global API settings, but the agent must parse the snake_case identifier itself to infer verb and resource, and there is no differentiation from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_settings_feature_flags_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_settings_general_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 at all, no conditions, and no mention of the settings_global_list/create/update/destroy siblings that share this resource. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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