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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does add useful context: the score is based on 7 signals, uses a 100-point scale, and returns a SAFE/CAUTION/AVOID classification. However, it doesn't disclose whether the tool is read-only, what data sources are used, or any side effects or limitations.

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 a single, tightly packed line that immediately conveys the core output, scale, and risk categories. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the key concept 'Full risk score'.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how to use it. It does mention the output scale and categories, but it omits essential context: what the 7 signals are, how chain and use_case affect the score, and whether the result includes a numeric score plus label. This is sufficient to begin a call but leaves major gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no meaning for the parameters (chain, symbol, use_case). The mention of '7 signals' is unrelated to the parameter names. The description fails to compensate for the schema's complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 identifies the tool as producing a full risk score with a specific scale (100-point) and output categories (SAFE/CAUTION/AVOID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like peg_status or supply_flow by emphasizing 'full risk score' and '7 signals', though it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculate' or 'return'.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Sibling tools exist (e.g., methodology, compare, peg_status), but the description does not mention them or explain which situations call for risk_assessment instead.

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