Api ebios rm studies likelihood retrieve

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

The description contradicts the annotations by stating the resource can be 'edited' while readOnlyHint=true declares a read-only operation. It also adds no useful behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide.

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, but it is boilerplate that does not front-load the actual purpose. Every part of it is generic and partly misleading rather than earned.

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-by-id endpoint in a very large API surface, the description fails to identify the likelihood resource, explain what is returned, or respect the read-only annotation. The readOnly annotation helps, but the contradiction and missing specificity leave the definition incomplete.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter, id, with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description does not explain that id identifies a likelihood record, so it adds no semantic value over the bare schema.

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 says it views or edits 'ebios rm studies' but omits the 'likelihood' subresource entirely. Its generic 'API endpoint' phrasing mostly restates the title rather than distinguishing this tool from the many sibling study endpoints.

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 study retrieve, list, or likelihood-related siblings. The phrase 'viewed or edited' implies ambiguous actions rather than a clear retrieval use case.

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