Api webhooks audit sinks retrieve

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, openWorld). The description does add one genuine behavioral detail — that unauthorized related fields are masked — which is real context beyond the annotations, but it doesn't explain not-found behavior, permission requirements, or what 'related fields' means. The masking disclosure earns partial credit rather than a full solution.

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's a single short sentence with no waste, but the phrase 'unauthorized related fields masked' is vague and awkward. Brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than precision.

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 endpoint with no output schema, the description should clarify the returned shape, the id semantics, and the masking behavior. It only gestures at masking, leaving the agent without enough to call it confidently or interpret results.

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's exactly one required parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — no format (UUID?), no source, no constraints. With the schema providing only 'type: string', the description should compensate and doesn't.

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 it returns a single object and adds a masking detail, but never says what the object is (an audit sink). The resource can only be inferred from the tool name, and there's no distinction drawn from the sibling _object_retrieve or _list variants.

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 ciso_assistant_api_webhooks_audit_sinks_object_retrieve, _list, or _cascade_info_retrieve. There's no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to pick among many near-identical retrieve siblings.

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