vsafe-risk

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

The description discloses that V-Safe queries primary sources LIVE (not from cache), typical response time (8-20s), and the need for a client timeout. This is good behavioral context. It does not explicitly state idempotency, but the nature of a risk check implies it is a read-only operation. No annotations were provided, so the description carries the transparency burden.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence providing the core purpose and return structure. The second sentence is dense but contains essential input and behavior details. It is relatively concise without fluff, though the second sentence could be split for improved readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 layers, live queries, risk score), the description covers input, output (risk score, band, breakdown), and behavioral notes (response time, timeout). It does not discuss error handling or invalid inputs, nor does it describe the sibling tool. Still, it provides a fairly complete picture with no output schema.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining the main parameter (registration_number) and the optional ones (company_name, website, LEI, DUNS, VAT) and their purpose to 'enrich the result'. It does not specify exact formats or validation rules, but adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool performs a 'Full V-Safe risk assessment of an Israeli company' with specific output details like risk score and band. It distinguishes the tool implicitly from the sibling 'quick_check' by mentioning 'all 8 layers', but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 specifies the required input (9-digit Israeli company number) and optional enriching parameters. It also provides a critical technical requirement: setting client timeout to >=30s due to live querying. However, it does not compare with the sibling tool or state when not to use this tool.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses live queries (not cached), typical response time, and timeout recommendation. Lacks details on idempotency, side effects, or authentication requirements, but adequate for a read-like tool.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose and inclusions, output schema reference, input and timing. No redundancy, front-loaded with key information.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should clarify return structure. References 'same output schema as full check' but that schema is unknown. Covers core behavior and constraints, but leaves return values and error cases unspecified.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. Adds format guidance for 'registration_number' (9-digit company number) and mentions 'website' is optional. Does not explain the purpose of website in the pre-screen or provide validation rules, partially compensating for schema lack.

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?

Clearly states it's a fast pre-screen, lists specific coverage (registry, insolvency, banking-restriction, domain), and explicitly excludes sanctions/adverse-media. Distinguishes from sibling by mentioning 'same output schema as full check' and contrasts with omitted modules.

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?

Explicitly describes input format (9-digit company number, optional website) and response time. Implies use case as a quick pre-screen versus a full check, but does not explicitly state when to use the sibling tool instead.

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