Api resilience escalation thresholds quali impact 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 nothing beyond that – no statement of what the 'quali impact' resource represents, no note that openWorldHint implies external data may be involved. It does not contradict annotations, but contributes zero behavioral context.

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?

It is extremely short, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single opaque token earns no place as a description.

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, an undocumented required parameter, and an opaque name, the description provides nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly. The domain terms 'quali impact' are never unpacked.

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 single parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining whether this is a threshold id, qualification id, or composite key. It says nothing, leaving the one required parameter completely ambiguous.

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 a verbatim restatement of the snake_case tool name, adding no human-readable statement of what is retrieved. An agent must reverse-engineer the intent from the opaque identifier alone, and it distinguishes this tool from siblings (e.g. the plain escalation_thresholds_retrieve or quant_unit_retrieve) not at all.

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 on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling endpoint to prefer. Given the presence of escalation_thresholds_retrieve and several other *_retrieve siblings, the absence of any routing cue is a serious gap.

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