Api validation flows retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: related fields the caller is not authorized to see are masked in the response. It stops short of explaining what masked values look like or whether the record 404s.

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, no filler, but it front-loads the least informative part ('a single object') and buries the one useful fact (field masking) at the end. Efficient but under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 simple single-id read with annotations covering safety, the definition is broadly sufficient, and the masking note is valuable. It still omits which resource is fetched and what happens when the id does not exist or is unauthorized.

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%, but there is only a single required 'id' string, whose meaning is self-evident for a retrieve endpoint. The description adds no format or identifier-source detail, so nothing is gained beyond the schema.

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' – it never names the resource (a validation flow), so the actual target is carried entirely by the tool name rather than the description. 'Return a single object' essentially restates what 'retrieve' already implies.

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 indication of when to use this versus the many sibling retrieve/list/object_retrieve endpoints (e.g. validation_flows_list, validation_flows_object_retrieve). No prerequisites or note about needing the object's id from a prior list call.

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