Api risk acceptances object retrieve

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

The description says the endpoint allows risk acceptance to be 'viewed or edited', but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Claiming edit capability on a read-only retrieve tool directly conflicts with the structured safety metadata, and no other behavior (auth, 404 on missing id, response shape) is disclosed.

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 a single short sentence, so there is no bloat, but it is generic boilerplate that puts no distinguishing information up front.

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 and a totally undocumented id parameter, the description needed to explain what object is returned and how it differs from the retrieve/list siblings. It does neither and muddies the read-only nature, leaving the definition inadequate for correct selection.

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 parameter 'id' is documented neither in the schema nor in the description. The one sentence adds no meaning about what the id refers to (risk acceptance UUID/pk) or its format.

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 mostly restates the title/name ('risk acceptance to be viewed or edited') without stating that it fetches a single risk acceptance by id. With siblings like risk_acceptances_list, _retrieve, and _object_retrieve, an agent cannot tell from this text which one returns one object versus a collection.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling risk-acceptance endpoints (list, retrieve, state, to_review, waiting, accept/reject/submit/revoke). Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.

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