Api ebios rm stakeholders cascade info 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 mention of what a "cascade preview" contains, no scope/permission notes, and no indication of whether this performs a dry-run computation or a lookup.

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 not concise in any useful sense: a dangling label with a colon and no content. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing substantive to front-load.

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?

With no output schema and an opaque one-parameter schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining invocation and return semantics, and it provides none. For a retrieval preview endpoint in the EBIOS RM domain, an agent has no basis to decide when or how to call it.

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 is just "id" (string) with no documented semantics. The description does not say what object the id refers to (a stakeholder, a study, an ecosystem?) or what the id format is, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

"Cascade preview:" is a two-word fragment that restates the tail of the tool name (cascade_info_retrieve) without stating a verb or what resource is previewed. An agent cannot tell from this what the call actually returns, nor how it differs from the many sibling cascade_info_retrieve tools in other domains.

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, when not to, or which sibling (e.g. ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_stakeholders_retrieve or _object_retrieve) is the alternative. The trailing colon implies something was meant to follow and got truncated.

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