Api risk assessments sync preview 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 reinforces 'preview' (no mutation) but adds nothing about what the preview returns, what 'EBIOS RM' sync entails, or whether it can fail on an invalid id.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler that immediately names the operation and source system.

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?

Given a simple read-only tool with one param and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient, but it omits what the preview output looks like and what the id must reference – both needed to invoke it confidently.

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 sole parameter is an unlabeled 'id'. The description never says whether this is a risk-assessment id, a study id, or an EBIOS RM study id, leaving the required input ambiguous when the schema provides no help.

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?

States a specific operation (preview) on a specific resource (a sync from EBIOS RM), which sets it apart from the sibling sync_from_ebios_rm_create that actually performs the sync. It doesn't explicitly name that sibling, but the 'preview' framing makes the distinction inferable.

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?

The word 'preview' implies this should be called before an actual sync, but the description never states that condition or names the alternative tool. Usage context is only implied.

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