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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, which lowers the burden on the description. The description adds that the output combines a risk level with active drivers, but it omits scope (market-wide vs portfolio), the scale of the level, and whether results are cached or time-sensitive.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the resource and its two components, with no filler. It is efficient, though slightly terse for an aggregate dashboard tool.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries almost the full burden, and it only partially meets it. It says what the dashboard shows but not how it relates to sibling risk tools or what the level/driver fields mean, which is a meaningful gap given the crowded risk-tool family.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-argument tool is 4. No parameter-related information is missing.

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 identifies the resource (market risk) and the content returned (risk level plus active drivers), so the purpose is discernible. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely related siblings such as get_risk_regime, get_risk_themes, or get_event_risks, leaving the agent unsure which risk tool this aggregate view supersedes.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this dashboard versus the many other risk-related tools (get_risk_regime, get_risk_themes, get_concentration_risk, macro_attribution). No prerequisites, scope, or alternatives are given, so usage must be inferred purely from the name.

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