Api risk assessments risk timeline retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are derived from BuiltinMetricSample snapshots rather than computed live — but says nothing about granularity, date scoping, or whether samples must be refreshed first.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return shape (series length, fields, sample cadence) and the meaning of 'id' — neither is addressed. For a timeline endpoint whose value is entirely in the returned series, this is a significant gap.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required parameter is an untyped-meaning 'id'. The description never clarifies whether this is a risk assessment id, an object id, or a metric instance id, which is exactly what the description needed to compensate for here.

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 a specific output ('risk metrics over time') and its data source ('BuiltinMetricSample snapshots'), which is enough to distinguish it from flat metric dumps like risk_analytics_retrieve. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state the scope of the returned series, so it stops short of a 5.

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 call this versus the many other risk-metric endpoints (risk_analytics_retrieve, risk_assessments_retrieve, metrology_builtin_metric_samples_for_object_retrieve). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated; the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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