Api ebios rm studies object retrieve

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

The boilerplate phrase "viewed or edited" implies write capability, which conflicts with the declared readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Beyond that contradiction, the description says nothing about permissions, what is returned, or what happens for a nonexistent 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded, with no padding — but its brevity comes from being generic boilerplate rather than from being efficient.

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 undocumented id parameter, the description would need to explain identifier format and return shape. It supplies neither, and it is ambiguous among several near-identical ebios RM studies retrieval siblings.

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 sole parameter (id, required, string) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not say whether the id is a UUID, integer, or ref string, so it adds no meaning over the 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 names the resource (ebios RM studies) and a vague verb pair ("viewed or edited"), so an agent can guess it is a per-object lookup by id. But it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and gives no detail on what a study record contains or how it differs from studies_list, studies_retrieve, or studies_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 statement of when to call this instead of ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_studies_retrieve, ..._studies_list, or ..._studies_object_retrieve, all of which are present as siblings. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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