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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists the risk components included but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, data sources, caching, rate limits, or the shape of the response, leaving notable gaps for a composite analysis tool.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently lists the included risk dimensions.

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 covers the tool's purpose and the dimensions returned, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, it omits usage context relative to the many sibling tools and provides no behavioral details, so it is only minimally complete for a composite risk-analysis operation.

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%, so the schema already documents symbol, providers, and period, including defaults and minimum provider counts. The description adds no syntax, format, or selection guidance for these parameters beyond restating that the summary is for an asset across selected oracle providers.

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 (composite risk summary) for an asset across selected oracle providers, and enumerates the included risk dimensions. It is clear what the tool computes, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling risk or health tools such as get_oracle_health or get_protocol_oracle_exposure.

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 says what the tool returns but provides no guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives like get_oracle_health, assess_rwa_evidence, or get_correlation. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites to help an agent select this tool.

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