Api findings assessments metrics retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing beyond that — no indication of what the metrics payload contains, whether it is scoped or global, or what the id refers to.

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?

Extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — the single string is an identifier restatement with no front-loaded explanation of action or resource.

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 metrics-retrieval endpoint with a required id, no output schema, and an opaque name, the description should at minimum state what metrics are returned and for which entity. Annotations cover safety, but the semantic gap remains large.

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 required parameter ('id') with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining what object the id identifies. It says nothing; the agent must guess whether it is a findings assessment id, a metrics record id, or a generic pk.

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 name verbatim ('api_findings_assessments_metrics_retrieve'), so the agent must decode the identifier to infer it retrieves metrics for findings assessments. It is a tautology that adds no clarification, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_get_metrics_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_findings_assessments_sunburst_data_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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided. An agent choosing among dozens of findings/metrics endpoints gets no signal about which one to select.

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