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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds operating context the annotations cannot: free, no authentication required, and rate limited. The rate limit is disclosed but unquantified, and it does not say what happens on limit breach, which keeps this short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and formula, then the band cutoffs, the input constraint, and the operational facts. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described, and the description nonetheless supplies the scoring bands needed to interpret the result. Only minor gaps remain: batch size ceiling and the specifics/behavior of the rate limit.

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 the description carries the burden and does so for the critical inputs: likelihood and impact are caller-supplied 1-5 values and are explicitly not inferred. It does not mention the optional 'mitigation' field, the 1-100 item cap, or the 2000-character limits, which are left to 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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Score user-supplied risks') and immediately pins down the exact calculation (likelihood x impact on a 1-5 scale) and the resulting bands (low <=6, medium <=14, high >=15). No sibling tool in the set does anything comparable, so no sibling differentiation is needed.

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?

'Does not infer likelihood or impact' is a real precondition that tells the agent it must extract and supply both values itself rather than pass free text. No alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are named, but the sibling set is unrelated domains, so there is nothing to route against.

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