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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: 'Answers are not stored' discloses a privacy/data-retention trait, and it describes the exact output shape including instructions_for_assistant and a report link. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but the added value over annotations is real.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and then the return contents; the closing presentation instruction is directive but earns its place by constraining agent behavior. Slightly dense in the output enumeration, but no sentence is wasted.

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 the full burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly (score out of 100, seven areas, three weakest areas with next steps, report link). Combined with the input-dependency note, an agent has everything needed to invoke and render the result 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% and the schema already documents the single answers array, its a/b/c enum, and the exactly-12 min/max constraint. The description only reinforces '12 answers' and the ordering, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 (scores) and resource (the 12 AI Practice Risk Check answers), and explicitly ties the input to the sibling tool get_risk_check_questions. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling question-fetching tool without opening any schema.

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 establishes the workflow dependency (answers come from get_risk_check_questions) and prescribes how to present results (show only what the tool returns, follow instructions_for_assistant). It does not state explicit when-not conditions or alternatives, but for a terminal scoring step the context is clear.

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