check_red_flags

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: no indication of read-only vs mutating, no permission requirements, no note on what the check inspects or how severe a 'flag' is. The output schema covers return shape, but side-effect and safety behavior remain undisclosed.

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?

Seven words is not concision but under-specification: it is a noun phrase with no verb, no object of the check, and no stated output. Brevity here removes information the agent needs rather than trimming waste.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, but everything else is missing: no annotation coverage, an undocumented required parameter, and no statement of what the check evaluates or what the agent should do with the result. Inadequate for even a simple tool.

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 single lead_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no meaning at all - it does not say which lead record to pass, whether it accepts an ID versus a name, or what happens for an unknown lead. For a 1-param tool, some guidance is expected.

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 fragment 'Red-flag checklist' plus the name check_red_flags identifies the resource, and 'before you propose' implies it evaluates a lead for risks ahead of a proposal. However, it never states what the tool actually does (compute flags? return a list? block a proposal?) and does not differentiate it from advice-oriented siblings like rate_advice or board_advice.

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?

'Before you propose' gives a clear timing cue that ties it to the proposal workflow (draft_proposal), which is more than most siblings offer. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to run it, leaving the agent to infer the trigger condition.

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