get_risk_acceptance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it discloses nothing beyond the basic purpose. It does not mention read-only nature, error behavior for missing IDs, permission requirements, or any side effects.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action. The Args block is minimal and directly documents the sole parameter, with no wasted sentences.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter, but it omits usage context and behavioral details such as not-found handling. With no annotations, these gaps are noticeable, though the low complexity keeps it minimally viable.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only restates the parameter name as 'The risk acceptance ID' without adding format, source, or validation details. This is effectively tautological with the schema title 'Risk Acceptance Id' and adds no meaningful semantic value.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a risk acceptance') and clarifies retrieval by ID, which distinguishes it from sibling list, create, update, and delete operations. The purpose is unambiguous for an agent scanning available tools.

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?

The description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives to consider. While 'by ID' implies that an ID is needed, it does not explain when to choose this tool over list_risk_acceptances or other retrieval methods.

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