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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses rate limiting and free-tier constraints, adding behavioral context. However, it does not describe error behavior, response format, or any side effects (though it's a getter). The rate-limit note is useful but incomplete.

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?

The description is very concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it redundantly mentions 'free' and 'rate-limited' twice ('Free, rate-limited' and '[free] (free tier, rate-limited per IP)'), which is slightly repetitive. Could be streamlined with a single mention.

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 description gives the core info (what it returns and rate limits) but lacks usage guidance and does not define 'composite score band' or explain how the result relates to other risk tools. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, more context could be helpful, but the tool is simple enough that this is adequate.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 states a clear purpose: returns the current PRG market risk regime label and composite score band. It is specific about the resource (regime label and score band) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_risk_snapshot, which might also be used for risk data.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Free, rate-limited' but does not explain when to choose this over get_risk_snapshot or get_mhi. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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