Api ebios rm stakeholders object retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context whatsoever — no mention of what an 'object' retrieve returns, permissions, or error behavior on 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?

The text is short, but its brevity is due to under-specification rather than economy; it is a raw identifier string, not a front-loaded sentence describing the operation.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotation-derived return info, and an undocumented id parameter, the description supplies nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or know what comes back.

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 description says nothing about the single required 'id' parameter — not its format, whether it is a UUID, or what resource it identifies. With one undocumented parameter and no compensating text, the description fails completely here.

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 the tool identifier restated verbatim ('api_ebios_rm_stakeholders_object_retrieve'), a tautology that adds no verb/resource framing beyond the name. An agent cannot tell from this text how it differs from siblings like stakeholders_retrieve, stakeholders_list, or stakeholders_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 alternatives. The sibling set contains several near-identical retrieve/list variants for stakeholders, so the absence of routing guidance is actively harmful rather than merely unhelpful.

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