Api ebios rm studies gravity retrieve

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

The description says the endpoint allows studies to be 'viewed or edited', implying a mutable operation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This directly contradicts the structured metadata and, even setting that aside, discloses nothing about what the gravity endpoint actually returns.

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 a single short sentence with no redundancy, but the brevity is achieved through under-specification rather than economy; nothing is front-loaded about the gravity action.

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 custom action endpoint with a required id, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description provides nothing an agent needs — not the return shape, not the semantics of 'gravity', not the distinction from the plain study retrieve.

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 adds no meaning about the single required 'id' parameter — whether it is the study id, the gravity scale identifier, or a feared-event id. Only the bare parameter name in the schema gives any hint.

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 text is a generic DRF boilerplate sentence that restates the resource ('ebios rm studies') without ever explaining the 'gravity' action in the tool name. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling endpoints such as ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_studies_retrieve, _object_retrieve, _risk_matrix_retrieve, or _likelihood_retrieve, so an agent cannot tell what data this returns.

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 endpoint versus the many sibling retrieve/list endpoints for the same resource. No prerequisites, no mention of the required study id or how the gravity result relates to feared events or risk matrices.

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