Api crq quantitative risk scenarios lec retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is combined Loss Exceedance Curve data, but it does not disclose prerequisites such as completed simulations or the return shape.

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?

The description is very short and front-loaded, but the trailing colon makes it read as incomplete. Its brevity comes at the cost of useful detail rather than being efficiently 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?

With no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition should explain more about the LEC payload, scenario prerequisite state, and identifier expectations. It gives only the bare purpose, leaving important context for an agent to infer.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only implies that the required id refers to the scenario, without stating the expected identifier format or whether it is a scenario ID, reference ID, or object ID.

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 a clear verb and resource: it returns combined Loss Exceedance Curve data for a scenario. It is more specific than the sibling scenario retrieval tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from tools like scenarios_object_retrieve or hypotheses_lec_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 LEC-specific endpoint versus the scenario retrieve, object_retrieve, or related quantitative risk tools. The implied usage is a scenario LEC lookup, but no alternatives or conditions are named.

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