Api risk assessments risk assessment pdf retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that boilerplate and actually misleads by mentioning 'edited', which suggests write capability that the endpoint does not have. It says nothing about what is returned (binary PDF, stream, or reference) for a retrieval endpoint.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, so it is concise and front-loaded. However the brevity comes from generic boilerplate rather than from tight, purposeful wording.

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?

For a PDF-export endpoint with no output schema and an undocumented id parameter, the description should at minimum explain that a PDF document for the given risk assessment is returned. None of that is present, so an agent cannot call it with confidence about the 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?

There is a single required 'id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not say what it identifies or what format it takes. The one detail an agent needs – that 'id' is the risk assessment record identifier used for the PDF – is left to inference.

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 restates the resource (risk assessments) but never says the endpoint produces a PDF, which is the distinguishing feature signalled by the tool name. It also includes 'or edited', which is wrong for a path-parameter-only retrieve. An agent cannot tell this apart from siblings such as risk_assessments_retrieve, risk_assessment_csv_retrieve, or risk_assessment_xlsx_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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says to pick this when a PDF rendering of a risk assessment is needed versus the CSV/XLSX exports or the plain JSON retrieve. The verb 'viewed' weakly implies read usage, but there are no alternatives or exclusions named.

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