Api resilience escalation thresholds quant unit retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the description is free to add context — but it adds none. It never says what data is returned or what a 'quant unit' endpoint even represents.

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 brief, but it is an identifier string rather than a front-loaded sentence, so brevity buys no clarity. No wasted words, but also no informative content.

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, no parameters, and many near-identical siblings, the description must carry the entire burden of explaining the return value and its distinction — and it carries none.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The empty schema is self-consistent with a static lookup endpoint.

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 simply the tool's snake_case name repeated, with no verb, resource, or scope explained. It is a tautology that an agent cannot interpret without decoding the identifier itself.

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 use this versus the closely related siblings such as resilience_escalation_thresholds_quali_impact_retrieve, resilience_escalation_thresholds_risk_matrix_retrieve, or escalation_thresholds_retrieve. Nothing indicates what 'quant unit' selects.

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