Api resilience business impact analysis status retrieve

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of what status is returned, whether it is a job/progress indicator, or any latency or freshness characteristics. With annotations doing all the work and no added context, a 2 is appropriate.

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?

The text is a single bare identifier with no front-loaded explanatory clause — it is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing about the response shape, status semantics, or scoping is stated.

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 and no parameters, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining what the retrieved status represents. Given dozens of sibling '_status_retrieve' endpoints across the API, an agent has no way to know which status object this returns or how it relates to the BIA list/retrieve tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters (empty object, additionalProperties false), so per the baseline for parameterless tools a 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level.

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 literally the tool's identifier string repeated ('api_resilience_business_impact_analysis_status_retrieve'), which restates the name/title rather than explaining what the tool does. An agent must parse the underscored name to infer that it retrieves a BIA status, and gets no prose confirmation of what 'status' means.

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 tool versus the many siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_resilience_business_impact_analysis_retrieve, _object_retrieve, _metrics_retrieve, or _build_table_retrieve. The agent must guess from naming conventions alone whether this returns computation/processing status or record status.

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