Api ebios rm feared events 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. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of what is returned, whether the id is a UUID or ref_id, or what happens on a missing record.

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 only because it is under-specified rather than concise; the single string is a copy of the tool name and carries no front-loaded intent statement.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe the returned object shape at least loosely; it does not. Combined with the undocumented id parameter and the near-identical sibling endpoints, the definition is not sufficient for correct invocation.

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 parameter 'id' has zero schema description coverage, so the description is the only place its meaning could be clarified. It is completely silent — it does not state whether this is the feared event's UUID, its ref_id, or a nested object path identifier.

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 identifier string 'api_ebios_rm_feared_events_object_retrieve' restated verbatim, which is a tautology rather than an explanation. An agent can only infer 'retrieve a feared event' by parsing the snake_case name itself, and cannot tell how this differs from the sibling 'ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_feared_events_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, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives. The sibling list contains both '..._feared_events_retrieve' and '..._feared_events_object_retrieve' (plus list, cascade_info, gravity, risk_matrix variants), and the description gives nothing to distinguish them.

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