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). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a hard cap of 20 rows, the undismissed filter, implicit redaction to what the caller can see, and a deterministic sort order. It does not disclose whether the 20-item cap is a truncation that hides additional risks, which is the one notable gap.

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?

Two sentences, fully front-loaded: the scope/cap/ordering comes first and the routing advice second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 does the necessary work by stating ordering, the 20-row cap, and the undismissed filter, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. It stops short of describing what fields a risk record contains, so it is near-complete rather than fully complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies that all filtering must happen via the sibling tool because none is available here.

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 (list risks), the scope (across every project the caller can see), the population (top 20 HIGH/CRITICAL undismissed), and the ordering (severity desc, then most-recent). It also contrasts itself against the sibling list_risks, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the exact conditions that select it: use `list_risks` when filtering by project, severity, category, or when dismissed rows are needed. This is a when-to-use/when-to-use-something-else statement with no inference required.

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