Api risk scenarios probability retrieve

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

The description says the endpoint allows risk scenarios to be 'viewed or edited', implying mutation, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction, and the description adds no other behavioral context (what the probability resource contains, auth needs, etc.).

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 a single short sentence, but that brevity is under-specification rather than economy: the one sentence is generic framework boilerplate that conveys nothing useful to an agent.

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 read-only retrieve with one path parameter and no output schema, the description should at minimum say what is returned (probability scale/labels for a risk scenario). It provides nothing, leaving the agent unable to predict the response shape or confirm the resource.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the required 'id' parameter or what entity it identifies (a risk scenario, a probability level, a matrix?). With a single undocumented parameter, the description should have clarified its meaning but does not.

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 name/title in generic DRF boilerplate ('API endpoint that allows risk scenarios to be viewed or edited') without explaining what the 'probability' sub-resource actually is. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings such as risk_scenarios_retrieve, risk_scenarios_impact_retrieve, or risk_matrices_probability_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?

There is no indication of when to call this endpoint versus the many sibling risk_scenarios retrieve/impact/treatment endpoints, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The boilerplate sentence provides zero routing guidance.

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