Api crq quantitative risk scenarios status 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. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say what status values are returned, whether it is a per-object lookup or an aggregate, or how the open-world dependency affects results.

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 by omission rather than by editing — the single token is the name restated, so nothing is front-loaded because nothing is said. This is under-specification, not conciseness.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what comes back, and it explains nothing. An agent cannot tell whether this returns a simulation/status enumeration, a progress object, or an aggregate count, which is exactly the information the missing output schema would have provided.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The empty schema is consistent with a parameterless status endpoint.

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 the tool identifier repeated verbatim ('api_crq_quantitative_risk_scenarios_status_retrieve'), which is a tautology rather than a statement of purpose. An agent can infer that it retrieves a status for CRQ quantitative risk scenarios only by parsing the snake_case name, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as the scenarios status endpoints for studies or the plain scenarios_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 call this versus ciso_assistant_api_crq_quantitative_risk_scenarios_retrieve, _list, or _object_retrieve. The only hint is the word 'status' embedded in the name, leaving the agent to guess at the selection condition.

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