Api settings general ebios radar parameters retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds nothing on top: no indication of whether the response is cached, config-dependent, global-scoped, or requires specific admin permissions. It does not contradict the annotations, it simply fails to contribute.

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 brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness: the single token string carries no explanatory content and is not front-loaded with a verb-plus-resource statement, so no sentence actually earns its place.

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 and no parameters, the description is the only place an agent could learn what the returned EBIOS radar parameters look like or what they are used for, and it provides none of that. It is complete only in the trivial sense of matching the name, which is insufficient for an agent to decide whether it needs this data.

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, which is the baseline-4 case per the rubric. The schema is empty and fully described, and there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs.

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 verbatim restatement of the tool's snake_case identifier, so any meaning (retrieve EBIOS radar parameters under general API settings) has to be decoded from the name itself. It does not state in prose what the tool returns or what an 'EBIOS radar parameter' is, and it gives no differentiation from adjacent settings retrievers such as settings_general_retrieve or settings_general_security_objective_scale_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 statement of when to call this versus the many sibling settings retrievers, no prerequisite or permission context, and no exclusions. The only cue is the word 'retrieve' embedded in the identifier, which implies a read but nothing about the conditions that select this tool.

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