Api risk acceptances state retrieve

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

The description says the endpoint allows a risk acceptance to be 'viewed or edited', implying write capability, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This boilerplate contradiction could lead an agent to attempt a mutation through a read-only endpoint. No additional behavioral context (what 'state' returns, side effects, auth scope) is provided.

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 with no wasted words, but that brevity comes from generic boilerplate rather than deliberate information design. The one phrase that carries meaning ('viewed or edited') is the misleading one.

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, the description is the only place to explain that this endpoint returns the set of possible risk-acceptance states/status values rather than a specific record. It omits that entirely, so an agent cannot tell what the response will contain.

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 document beyond what the schema shows; baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed.

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 names the resource (risk acceptance) but uses generic DRF boilerplate rather than stating a specific verb, and it never explains what the 'state' sub-resource actually is. It also does not distinguish this from the many sibling operations on the same resource (risk_acceptances_retrieve, _list, _object_retrieve, _to_review_retrieve, _waiting_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 call this versus the other risk-acceptance endpoints, and no mention of required identifiers or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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