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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context about the premium, pay-per-use nature and the required input. However, it does not describe failure modes, output structure, or other execution-related behaviors such as authentication or token/cost limits beyond a flat price.

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 concise and packs the essential value into a compact form: purpose, input, and pricing. The structure is a bit telegraphic, but every clause carries useful information and the most important function is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to understand what to send and roughly what to expect: a risk analysis with mitigations. Additional details about response format or length would be helpful, but are not critical for basic 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'input' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'input=decision/plan' restates the schema rather than adding new semantic depth.

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 clearly states a specific action — 'risk analysis of a decision/plan' — and specifies that it produces mitigations. This makes the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like strategy-plan, report, or fact-check, even without naming them.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a decision or plan needs risk evaluation with mitigations. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative sibling tools should be preferred for related but different tasks.

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