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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool re-runs a full assessment and recomputes statuses, implying a write or mutation operation, but it does not disclose whether results are overwritten, whether permissions are needed, or any side effects.

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 two short sentences and entirely front-loaded with the primary action. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the action and the evidence used. However, it omits what the return value or status update looks like, and the lack of annotations makes the side effects unclear.

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% for the single optional parameter, entity_id, which has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verb+resource: "Re-run full assessment for an entity" and clarifies the outcome with "Recomputes Ampel statuses from all available evidence." This distinguishes it from sibling tools like retest_finding or run_trial_assessment by indicating a comprehensive, all-evidence reassessment.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like cross_oracle_assess or retest_finding, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions.

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