Api solutions dora substitutability retrieve

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

The description claims the endpoint allows solutions to be "viewed or edited", but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Advertising an edit capability on a read-only retrieve endpoint is a direct contradiction and could lead an agent to attempt mutation.

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 with no filler, so it is concise. However, the brevity comes from boilerplate rather than precision, and the second half of the sentence is actively misleading rather than earning 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 annotations explaining what a DORA substitutability look-up returns, the description must carry the load and does not. An agent learns nothing about the returned value set or why this field matters for DORA third-party risk.

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 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No penalty is warranted, though the description adds no value here either.

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?

"API endpoint that allows solutions to be viewed or edited" is generic DRF boilerplate that restates the resource (solutions) but never says what this endpoint actually returns. It does not mention DORA substitutability at all, so it cannot be told apart from the many sibling `solutions_dora_*_retrieve` and `solutions_*_retrieve` 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 on when to call this versus sibling DORA field endpoints (e.g. `dora_non_substitutability_reason_retrieve`, `dora_reliance_level_retrieve`) or the generic `solutions_retrieve`. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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