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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description is consistent with these. It adds useful context by specifying that the log includes signals, fresh/stale sources, claims, models, related articles, and confidence level, going beyond a generic 'returns data' statement.

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 concise sentences with no fluff: the resource and scope are front-loaded, followed by a compact content list. Every clause 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?

The tool has a single optional enum parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what the log contains and the supported windows, making it complete enough for correct invocation.

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%: the single optional window parameter is already documented with its enum values and meaning. The description reinforces '1, 7 or 30 days' but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Renvoie') and names a distinct resource, the 'Risk Diff l0g', with a clear scope: changes in risk over 1, 7, or 30 days. It also enumerates contents such as signals, sources, claims, models, articles, and confidence, distinguishing it from siblings like get_changes or get_freshness.

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 temporal windows and 'ce qui a changé dans le risque' give a clear implied use case for historical risk-diff checks. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over closely related siblings such as get_changefeed, get_changes, or get_risk_indices, nor does it state exclusions.

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