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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing two non-obvious traits: an entitlement requirement (Professional plan+) and an interactive side effect (sign-in flow is triggered when the user is unauthenticated). It stops short of describing rate limits or the shape of the returned indicator.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information (purpose, entitlement, auth behavior), with the core purpose front-loaded. Nothing is redundant and there is no filler.

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 more of the burden, and it never says what the 'ACI Risk Indicator' actually contains (scale, buckets, or confidence). Still, the entitlement and auth-flow disclosures plus 100% schema coverage make it largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 already documented in the schema. The description's 'by slug or name' adds a mild mapping cue but does not clarify whether provider_name and provider_slug are mutually exclusive, both required, or how conflicts are resolved, so the 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 (Get) and resource (ACI Risk Indicator) and scopes it to 'one provider, by slug or name', which distinguishes it from the portfolio-level sibling assess_portfolio_risk. It does not explicitly name or contrast with get_provider_detail or compare_providers, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides real usage context in the form of plan gating ('Professional plan and above') and the sign-in side effect, which tells the agent when the call is viable. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to alternative tools for portfolio or comparative risk questions.

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