tool_calculate_composite_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the env var requirement and the output decision levels, but lacks details on how signals are combined, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if no signal is provided.

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 concise with a clear front-loaded summary and a list of parameters. However, there is slight redundancy between the first paragraph and the docstring.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main purpose and inputs but lacks details on combination logic, error scenarios, and response structure. Adequate but with gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic descriptions for each parameter (ip, email, phone, url) but does not specify format or validation rules. The default empty string is mentioned but not explained.

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 calculates a combined fraud risk score from multiple signals and returns a decision level (ALLOW/MONITOR/REVIEW/BLOCK). It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform individual checks (e.g., ip, email, phone, url).

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?

It states to provide at least one signal and lists the optional parameters. It mentions the required environment variable IPQS_API_KEY. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this composite tool vs the individual sibling tools, or specify any exclusions.

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