Api risk assessments per status retrieve

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

The description says risk assessments can be 'viewed or edited,' which implies write capability, while annotations explicitly declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction, and the description adds no useful behavioral context such as auth requirements, grouping semantics, or response shape.

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 it is concise, but the sentence is vague and front-loads generic 'API endpoint' framing rather than the tool's actual operation.

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?

Even for a parameterless retrieval endpoint, the description fails to clarify what 'per status' means, what data is returned, or how it differs from adjacent risk-assessment retrieval tools. With no output schema, the description should do more to explain the expected result.

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 has zero parameters and full schema description coverage, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 only says it is an API endpoint that allows risk assessments to be viewed or edited, which mostly restates the fact that it is an API endpoint. It does not explain the 'per_status' behavior or distinguish this from sibling tools like risk_assessments_status_retrieve, risk_assessments_list, or risk_assessments_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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling risk-assessment retrieval tools. It also does not explain when the per-status grouping should be preferred over a general list or status endpoint.

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