Api ebios rm operational scenarios object retrieve

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) already cover the safety and idempotency profile, so the description is not obligated to repeat them. However it adds nothing beyond the name: no indication of what permissions are required, what happens on a missing/invalid id, or what the response shape is.

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 brevity here reflects under-specification rather than concision: the single token carries no information an agent didn't already have from the tool name, so nothing is front-loaded except redundancy.

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 retrieve-by-id tool with no output schema and no documented parameter, the description would need to explain the entity domain, the id format, and the returned resource. None of that is present, leaving an agent unable to call it correctly without external inference.

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 a bare string with no description in the schema. The description does not compensate by saying whether this is a UUID, a numeric id, or a business ref (the sibling family uses ref_id elsewhere), so an agent has no basis for constructing a valid call.

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 literally the tool's snake_case identifier restated ("api_ebios_rm_operational_scenarios_object_retrieve"), which is the definition of a tautological description. An agent can infer 'retrieve one operational scenario object' only by parsing the name itself, and there is no statement of what an operational scenario is or what the returned object contains.

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 usage guidance at all — no when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no distinction from the many close siblings such as ..._operational_scenarios_retrieve, ..._operational_scenarios_list, ..._object_retrieve on other resources, or ..._operational_scenarios_cascade_info_retrieve. The agent must guess between them purely from name tokens.

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