Api crq quantitative risk scenarios 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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on permissions, error behavior for a missing id, or the shape of the returned scenario.

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 brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. No information is front-loaded because no information beyond the name exists.

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 one-parameter retrieve, annotations plus schema could nearly suffice, but with 0% parameter documentation and no output schema, the description should at least say what is fetched and returned. It supplies neither.

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 'id' parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never states that the id is the primary key of a quantitative risk scenario, nor its format (string, likely UUID).

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 literally the tool name repeated ('api_crq_quantitative_risk_scenarios_object_retrieve'), which is a tautology rather than an explanation. It does not state in prose that it fetches a single quantitative risk scenario by id, nor distinguish itself from the many sibling retrieve/list endpoints (e.g. crq_quantitative_risk_scenarios_retrieve, _list, _cascade_info_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 tool versus the numerous sibling retrieval endpoints. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the single-object fetch rather than the list or filtered retrieve variants.

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