Api ebios rm ro to object retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and that it is non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what object is fetched, permissions, or what happens on a missing id.

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 that is under-specification rather than conciseness; the single restated identifier earns no information for the agent.

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?

A retrieve tool with an undocumented id parameter, no output schema, and no annotation-explaining text leaves the agent with nothing to distinguish the target entity. The definition is inadequate 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?

There is one required 'id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — and it supplies nothing about what kind of id it is (ROTO object? fear event? study?) or its format.

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 name repeated: 'api_ebios_rm_ro_to_object_retrieve'. It gives no verb-plus-resource statement an agent could act on and does not distinguish this from siblings such as api_ebios_rm_ro_to_retrieve or api_entities_object_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 versus the many near-identical '_object_retrieve' or '_retrieve' siblings. The agent is left to infer everything from the snake_case name.

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