Api risk assessments quality check retrieve 2

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't describe what the quality check payload contains, its severity structure, or why a second retrieve variant exists.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is structurally clean. It is under-specified rather than verbose, so brevity here doesn't earn full marks.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should at least sketch the return shape; instead it gives none. Combined with an undocumented parameter and an unexplained duplicate sibling, an agent lacks the information needed to call this correctly and preferentially.

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?

There is one required parameter 'id' with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never clarifies that this id is the risk assessment's identifier, nor its format (UUID vs. numeric). With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 verb ('Returns') and resource ('quality check of the risk_assessment') are identifiable, so the agent knows the general operation. But it cannot tell this apart from the sibling ciso_assistant_api_risk_assessments_quality_check_retrieve (and the '_2' suffix is never explained), which is exactly the ambiguity the description should resolve.

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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of the near-identical sibling quality_check_retrieve that shares the same purpose. The agent is left to guess which of the two endpoints to pick and when either is relevant.

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