Api risk scenarios cascade info retrieve

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, but the description adds almost nothing. "Cascade preview" faintly implies it returns what would be affected by a cascading delete, but the response shape, whether it summarizes related objects, and typical size are all undisclosed.

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 short, but short because it is under-specified rather than because it is efficient; the trailing colon also reads as a truncated template. There is no front-loaded statement of what the tool does or returns.

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, no parameter documentation, and a description of two words, an agent cannot determine what this tool returns or when to prefer it over sibling retrieval tools. Nothing about the call is recoverable from the definition.

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 single required parameter `id` has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about it — not what entity it identifies (a risk scenario? a study?), nor its format. The description does not compensate for the schema gap at all.

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 is a two-word fragment, "Cascade preview:", that never names a verb, resource, or object. Only the tool name hints that it retrieves cascade-impact information for a risk scenario, and the trailing colon suggests truncated/auto-generated text rather than a stated purpose.

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 indication of when to call this versus the many sibling retrieval and cascade_info tools (e.g. risk_scenarios_object_retrieve, risk_scenarios_retrieve, risk_scenarios_destroy). No preconditions or exclusions are given.

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