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

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so fully: it names acceptedCount, dismissedCount, affectedProjects, and the verdict enum (recurring | frequently_dismissed | mixed). Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety profile, so this adds genuine behavioral value on top.

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 tight sentences with no waste, front-loading the aggregate action and scope before the return details and the optional parameter. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-param read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields, the verdict semantics, the widget purpose, and the lookback bound. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single optional param is already documented as '1..365, default 90'. The description restates the same facts without adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (aggregate) and resource (risks), plus scope (caller's visible projects, by category). This clearly differentiates it from org-wide siblings like list_org_risk_patterns and per-project analyzes like analyze_project_risks.

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 'caller's visible projects' scope and the note that it drives the Critical Risk Register badge give clear context for when this applies. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or a when-not condition, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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