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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that it is a read operation. The description adds useful context that the tool returns risk_score_reasons and per-factor subscores, and that the request body is identical to minfraud_score, which aids in understanding the request without contradicting annotations.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then mentions the request body similarity, and ends with the API endpoint. Every sentence adds value and the structure is efficient.

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 the complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, low schema coverage), the description lacks completeness. It does not describe the response format, the implications of omitting parameters, or how to effectively use the tool. The missing output schema and low coverage increase the burden on the description, which it does not meet.

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?

With only 18% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters, but it only states 'Same request body as minfraud_score.' This does not provide enough semantic information for the 11 parameters, many of which lack descriptions in the schema.

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 title and description clearly state the tool provides the most detailed assessment including risk reasons and subscores, and it distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it contains everything in Insights plus additional details. The reference to the API endpoint and same request body as minfraud_score further clarifies its purpose.

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 the tool should be used when you need risk reasons and subscores beyond Insights, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tools (minfraud_insights, minfraud_score, etc.). However, the comparison to Insights provides enough context for an AI agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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