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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations, specifically that the tool is paid via x402 or API key credits with a free tier of 20 calls/day. This is not disclosed in the annotations or schema. The description does not contradict the readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word earns its place. The second sentence provides critical billing/quota details without bloat.

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?

The description, combined with rich schema and annotations, provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers purpose, payment, and rate limits, though it does not describe the exact return format (risk score value/range), which is not critical for selection.

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 100% description coverage for all parameters, including nested objects. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already does the heavy lifting. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's function: scoring the risk of a proposed agent action before execution. It uses a specific verb ('score') and resource ('risk of a proposed agent action'), and the timing ('before execution') distinguishes it from other tools like simulate or policy_gate.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (before executing an agent action), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The payment and rate-limit information also helps set expectations for usage.

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