Api resilience business impact analysis 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 adds no further behavioral context, such as aggregated metric scope, access requirements, or whether results cover one BIA or all of them.

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 efficiency. The single token offers no front-loaded explanation of action, scope, or result.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what metrics are returned and at what granularity. Combined with an undocumented id parameter, the definition leaves an agent unable to predict the response or the correct identifier.

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 single required 'id' parameter is undocumented. The description says nothing about what the id identifies (a BIA record? a metric instance?), so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 just the tool name restated ('api_resilience_business_impact_analysis_metrics_retrieve'), a tautology. The name implies a metrics retrieval for business impact analysis, but the description does not state a verb-plus-resource in prose or differentiate it from siblings like business_impact_analysis_list or business_impact_analysis_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 guidance about when to use this endpoint versus siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_resilience_business_impact_analysis_retrieve, _list, or the asset-assessments metrics endpoint. An agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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