Api ebios rm studies retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in annotations: related fields the caller is not authorized for are masked rather than omitted or erroring, which affects how the agent should interpret the response. It says nothing about permissions required or whether an unauthorized id yields 404 vs 403.

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?

A single short sentence with zero redundancy, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the budget spent is tiny and the most important information (resource, parameter, return shape) is absent.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe the returned study object's shape or at least the id semantics; it does neither. For a permission-sensitive read tool, the masking note is a start but does not make the definition complete enough to invoke confidently.

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 is one parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining it, yet it never mentions the id, its type/format, or that it identifies the study. The description adds no parameter meaning at all.

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 only 'Return a single object', which restates the retrieve verb without naming the resource (an EBIOS RM study) or distinguishing it from siblings like object_retrieve, list, or cascade_info_retrieve. The one substantive phrase, 'unauthorized related fields masked', describes a behavior, not the purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_studies_object_retrieve or the list endpoint, and no mention of the required id or what happens if the id is unknown or inaccessible. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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