Api risk scenarios default ref id retrieve

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

The description says risk scenarios can be 'edited', but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This is boilerplate inherited from the API root and actively misdescribes a read-only retrieve endpoint, while adding nothing about what a 'default ref id' response entails.

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, but it is generic template text that conveys no tool-specific information — brevity at the cost of usefulness rather than in service of it.

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 zero-param read endpoint with no output schema, the description should at least explain what the default reference ID is and what shape the response takes. It provides none of that, leaving the agent unable to predict the return.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to document in this dimension.

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 generic DRF boilerplate ('allows risk scenarios to be viewed or edited') that does not mention the actual resource of the endpoint — the default reference ID for risk scenarios — which appears only in the tool name. It doesn't distinguish this tool from the ~30 other risk_scenarios sibling endpoints.

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 guidance whatsoever on when to use this endpoint versus risk_scenarios_retrieve, risk_scenarios_list, or risk_scenarios_object_retrieve. An agent has nothing to route on.

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