lane_risk_index

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is modeled and indicative, not a live feed or insurance-grade, and mentions pay-per-call pricing. However, it does not detail data freshness or authentication requirements.

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 long and dense with all-caps emphasis, but front-loads the core concept. While informative, it could be more structured and concise; several sentences explain individual risk dimensions in detail.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema), the description is highly complete: it explains what the score represents, lists all risk factors, describes output (score, breakdown, mitigations), and includes limitations and pricing. It covers what an agent needs to know.

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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds context, e.g., transit_country overlays geopolitical risk, carrier_count impacts concentration, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 computes a lane-risk score (0-100) for supply-chain risk mapping. It specifies the verb 'compose' and lists multiple risk dimensions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like carbon_footprint or get_lane_trend.

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 implies use for risk mapping by a supply-chain director but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on when not to use is given.

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