Api crq quantitative risk hypotheses object retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that - no mention of what is returned, whether missing IDs error, or any access constraints - so it earns only a minimal score on top of 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?

There is nothing extraneous, but only because there is almost nothing at all - a bare identifier with no front-loaded statement of purpose, scope, or outcome. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient editing.

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 tool with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should at minimum identify the resource and the meaning of the ID. It supplies neither, leaving the agent entirely dependent on the opaque tool name and sibling naming conventions.

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%: the single required parameter 'id' is an untyped-in-prose string with no format, source, or example given anywhere. The description does not compensate at all, so an agent cannot tell whether 'id' is a numeric PK, a UUID, or a ref_id string.

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 a verbatim restatement of the tool name, 'api_crq_quantitative_risk_hypotheses_object_retrieve'. An agent can only infer 'retrieve a CRQ quantitative risk hypothesis object' by parsing the identifier itself; the description contributes no additional statement of what the tool does or how it differs from sibling retrieve tools such as ..._hypotheses_retrieve or ..._hypotheses_list.

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 usage guidance whatsoever is provided. It does not say when to fetch an individual hypothesis object versus calling the list endpoint, the cascade_info endpoint, or the related lec/risk_stage/run_simulation endpoints, all of which appear as siblings.

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