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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the radar is a judged forward-looking assessment with an associated regime, which is useful framing, but it discloses nothing about freshness, latency, or how the as_of snapshot is reconstructed.

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?

One dense content sentence followed by a short operational sentence; the key payload is front-loaded and no sentence is filler. It is longer than strictly necessary but every clause describes a real attribute of the return.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the core is adequate for a read-only tool. The gap is the two undocumented filtering parameters, which neither the schema nor the description makes usable.

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 carries the burden. It documents as_of well (format YYYY-MM-DD, meaning 'radar as it stood on a past date') but says nothing about scope or market, whose defaults of 'retail' and 'global' are unexplained and whose accepted values are unknown.

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 names a specific resource (the risk radar) and enumerates its content: trends, impact, probability, rationale, the governing regime, and confirming/killing indicators. An agent knows exactly what comes back, though it never contrasts itself with the similarly-named sibling track_risk_evolution.

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 rather than stated: the as_of sentence tells the agent this tool can be called for a historical snapshot, which implies retrospective use. There is no explicit when-to-use, no conditions separating it from get_catalysts, get_executive_brief, or track_risk_evolution.

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