Api ebios rm stakeholders list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only an internal serializer-context optimization detail, not anything an agent needs about behavior, filtering scope, pagination, or return shape.

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?

The description is a single sentence, so it is not verbose, but it is front-loaded with implementation terminology that does not earn its place for an agent selecting or invoking the tool. Being short is not sufficient when the content is internal and non-actionable.

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 list tool with 12 undocumented optional parameters, no output schema, and many sibling list/retrieve endpoints, the description is completely inadequate. It supplies no operational context for selecting filters or interpreting results.

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 are 12 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no information about any of them (limit, offset, search, category, ebios_rm_study, criticality filters, etc.). With low schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it does not.

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 an internal implementation note ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than a statement of what the tool does for a caller. It never says that the tool lists EBIOS RM stakeholders, so an agent cannot infer its actual purpose from the description alone.

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 list endpoint versus sibling tools such as object_retrieve, retrieve, or other EBIOS RM list endpoints. No prerequisites, filters, or usage context are described.

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