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

Annotations only cover the safe-read profile; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the score_status contract (PUBLISHED vs WITHHELD, RETIRED, AWAITING_CERTIFICATION, NOT_ASSESSED), that non-published states carry score_status_message and no value or band, the not-found behavior for unknown providers, the plan gate, and the sign-in side effect.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the status contract, then access/auth caveats in descending priority. The status enumeration is long but each state is load-bearing since there is no output schema; no sentence is filler.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the key field, its enum-like values, and what accompanies each. Auth/plan requirements and failure modes are also covered, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this.

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%, so both provider_name and provider_slug are already documented as display name and slug/UUID. The description's 'by slug or name' restates this without adding format or precedence guidance (e.g. which key wins if both are supplied, or whether name is ambiguous).

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get the current ACI Risk Indicator) scoped to exactly one provider, and notes the two lookup keys (slug or name). That single-provider scope is precisely what distinguishes it from siblings like compare_providers and assess_portfolio_risk.

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?

Gives clear operational context: Professional plan and above, sign-in is triggered if the user is not signed in, and an unknown provider returns not-found. It implies the single-provider use case versus comparison siblings, but it never names an alternative tool or states a when-not-to-use condition.

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