Api ebios rm feared events retrieve

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lowered, yet the description adds a genuine non-obvious behavior: related fields the caller is not authorized to see are masked in the response. That is real auth-scoped context an agent would otherwise not know. It stops short of noting what masking means for completeness of the returned object.

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 efficient sentence with zero padding, and the masking behavior is stated up front. However, the sentence is short because it omits essentials rather than because it is dense, so terseness here costs more than it saves.

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 read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description still leaves key gaps: what entity is fetched, what 'id' identifies, and how it differs from the object_retrieve sibling. Only the masking note is complete.

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% and the single required parameter 'id' is documented nowhere. The description never explains that 'id' is the feared event identifier or its format, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 says only 'Return a single object' – it never names the resource (EBIOS RM feared event) that the tool name carries. Read without the tool name, an agent cannot tell what is being returned, and there is no differentiation from siblings such as ..._feared_events_object_retrieve or ..._feared_events_list.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing the object's id), and no routing to alternatives. With three closely named feared-event read siblings (retrieve, object_retrieve, cascade_info_retrieve, list), the description gives the agent nothing to choose between them.

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