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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read, lowering the bar. The description contributes the useful fact that the result is a categorical regime label (calm / mild nervousness / strong nervousness / crisis), which is real behavioral information not present in annotations or any output schema.

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 short fragment with zero filler and the key information front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness edges into under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it only partially does so — it lists the regime categories but does not say whether the result is a single label, a score, a history, or a time horizon. For a zero-param read tool the input side is trivially complete, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify on the input side, and it does not attempt to.

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 names the resource (market risk / 'Ryzyko rynkowe') and enumerates the possible regimes, so an agent can infer it returns a market-risk classification. However, there is no verb at all — it is a fragment, not a statement of what the tool does — and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_risk_dashboard, get_risk_themes or get_concentration_risk.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative among the many risk-related siblings (get_risk_dashboard, get_risk_themes, get_concentration_risk). The agent must guess when this is the right call versus those.

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