Api ebios rm operational scenarios likelihood retrieve

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

The description adds nothing beyond what annotations already state (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). It does not say what the likelihood endpoint computes, whether it is a computed/derived value versus a stored field, or whether it can fail if the scenario lacks required inputs.

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?

Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no front-loaded statement of purpose, only a machine identifier repeated as prose.

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, no annotations-level compensation for what the endpoint returns, and an undocumented required identifier. For an endpoint in a dense family of near-identical '_likelihood_retrieve' siblings, this is completely inadequate to call correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'id' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not say whether 'id' is the operational scenario UUID, a study id, or a likelihood record id, which is a real ambiguity given the surrounding endpoints.

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 only the raw operation ID, 'api_ebios_rm_operational_scenarios_likelihood_retrieve', which restates the name and title rather than explaining what is returned. An agent can infer it retrieves a likelihood value for an EBIOS RM operational scenario, but nothing distinguishes it from the sibling 'api_ebios_rm_operating_modes_likelihood_retrieve' or from 'operational_scenarios_risk_matrix_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 the many sibling likelihood/retrieve endpoints (operating_modes_likelihood, studies_likelihood, risk_matrix, retrieve). No prerequisites, no context about the EBIOS RM workflow step.

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