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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds only the "risk register" clarification and says nothing about pagination, result volume, or default ordering beyond what the schema states. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and its colloquial alias front-loaded before the filter list. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs trimming.

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, non-destructive list tool with fully documented params and annotation coverage, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. It does not need to explain return values, though with no output schema a brief note on result shape/pagination would have made it fully self-contained.

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 100%, with every parameter (including enum values for status, category, probability, impact) already documented in the schema. The description merely restates the filterable dimensions, adding no syntax, combination, or defaulting semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("List project risks") and clarifies the domain with "(risk register)", making it easy to tell apart from get_project_risk and the create/update/delete risk tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling list tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool filters risks, so an agent infers it is for browsing/searching the register. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer get_project_risk for a single record, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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