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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that this is a read-only insight operation (no state change) and provides the API endpoint. No contradictions, but no additional behavioral details like authentication or rate limits.

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?

Description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No fluff, but could include a summary of key outputs without being verbose.

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?

Despite complex nested parameters (11+ objects) and no output schema, the description offers no explanation of the response structure or how to interpret risk insights. This leaves the agent underinformed.

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 only 18%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely mentions 'IP geolocation, email/address/device attributes' without mapping to schema properties. Many parameters remain undocumented in both description and 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?

Description clearly states the tool 'scores a transaction' and 'gets detailed risk insights', distinguishing it from minfraud_score by mentioning per-component risk. The verb+resource structure is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Description explicitly notes 'same request body as minfraud_score', helping the agent choose between score and insights. It implies use when detailed insights are needed, but does not explicitly exclude other siblings like minfraud_factors.

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