Api ebios rm feared events gravity 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 safety is covered without the description's help. The description adds no behavioral context at all — it does not say whether this returns a computed gravity level, a scale definition, or a per-event breakdown. It does not contradict the annotations, so no contradiction flag.

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 a single meaningless token, so it is technically short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of intent for an agent to act on.

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 tool with a required identifier, no output schema, and a crowded namespace of similar retrieve endpoints, the definition provides none of the context needed to invoke it correctly or interpret the result. Nothing about the expected response or the meaning of 'gravity' is given.

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 single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description offers no clarification of what the id identifies — a feared event, a study, or an assessment. With a non-zero parameter count and zero coverage, the description must compensate and completely fails to do so.

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 raw operation identifier repeated verbatim, which is a restatement of the name/title rather than an explanation of purpose. The name does hint at retrieving the gravity (criticality) of EBIOS RM feared events, but the description adds nothing beyond that, and 'gravity' as a domain concept is never explained.

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 many near-identical siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_feared_events_risk_matrix_retrieve, ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_studies_gravity_retrieve, or ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_feared_events_retrieve. The agent has no basis for choosing among them.

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