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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it well: it discloses the three status outcomes, the return envelope shape ({ok:true, result} or a persisted domain error), and the presence of resolved data dates and an inputs hash. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit or retry-interval specifics for the queued case.

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 action, then a compact status → meaning breakdown with no filler sentences. Slightly dense with domain jargon ('risk envelope', 'deterministic inputs hash') that is not unpacked, but nothing 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?

There is no output schema or annotation coverage, so the description must describe returns and lifecycle itself, and it largely does — status handling, envelope shape, error example, and extra result fields. It stops short of detailing what the risk envelope contains, which is the main remaining gap for a fetch tool.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of param meaning, and it adds only 'by id'. It confirms the parameter is an analysis identifier but does not say how to obtain that id (e.g., returned by run_risk_analysis) or any validity constraints beyond the schema's uuid format.

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+resource ('Fetch an analysis by id'), which is clearly distinct from the list_* siblings and from run_risk_analysis as its create counterpart. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, so it falls just short of the 5 tier.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the status=queued branch tells the agent to poll again, which implies this is the polling/fetch step after run_risk_analysis. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no precondition (e.g., where the analysis_id comes from), and no named alternative.

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