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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description then adds value by disclosing the output shape (accepted vs dismissed counts, surfaced projects, verdict values) and that scope is limited to the caller's accessible projects.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose/return shape first, then usage trigger, then parameter notes. Efficient and well ordered, with only mild redundancy around parameters already in 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully: counts per category, source projects, and verdict enumeration. Combined with usage triggers and parameter defaults, an agent has what it needs to select and call it correctly.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the enum categories and the windowDays default/max, which the schema already provides, adding no meaning beyond it, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: aggregates cross-project risk patterns for the caller's accessible projects, scoped by category counts and verdicts. This is clearly differentiated in spirit from list_org_risks, but the sibling compute_risk_patterns is not addressed, leaving a small ambiguity.

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 concrete contexts: 'when planning risk analysis on a new project' and the sample user question. Clear trigger conditions, but it names no alternative tool or exclusions for when a different risk tool should be preferred.

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