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

Beyond the annotations (which already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive), the description discloses meaningful behavior: enterprise-only availability, required permission scope, the ≤90-day window, risk not restricted to billable projects, and that per-currency totals are NOT normalized across currencies. Those last two are exactly the kind of non-obvious traits an agent needs and could not infer from structured data.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then layers the risk definition, return shape, and permission in logical order. It is dense and slightly long, but nearly every clause carries distinct information, so it earns its size.

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 deliberately covers the return shape (per-user rows sorted by marginAtRisk descending, plus per-currency totals), tells the agent what 'risk' means, and gives the underlying endpoint and permission. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the call 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 coverage is 100%, so the two date parameters are already documented. The description restates the ≤90-day span constraint but adds no format or semantic detail beyond what the schema's `to` field already says, making this a baseline 3.

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?

The description names the exact verb+resource (per-user breakdown of cost vs revenue at risk) and pins down the domain-specific meaning of 'risk' as a compliance-hours gap valued at billable rate. An agent can tell this apart from generic risk or compliance tools without opening the 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?

It states gating prerequisites clearly (ENTERPRISE+ tier, `org.compliance.manage` default OWNER+/ADMIN+), which tells the agent when the call will be permitted. It does not, however, route between this and adjacent compliance tools like weekly_compliance or list_compliance_exceptions, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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