risk_assessment

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

No annotations provided, but the description covers the return values (risk score, level, multi-loan index, court records, etc.) and mentions the free tier limit (20 requests/day). It does not discuss rate limiting or data handling beyond that, but is sufficient for understanding behavior.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, outputs, use cases, and additional note on phone and free tier. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description lists many return fields, and covers inputs and use cases. Lacks details on response format and error scenarios, but is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100% with each parameter well described. The description adds minimal extra value (optional phone improves accuracy). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides meaning.

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 it is a personal risk assessment based on name and ID card, listing specific outputs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling risk tools like query_enterprise_risk or vehicle_risk_score, but the context makes it clear it's for individuals.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases (personal credit evaluation, loan risk assessment, customer risk profiling) and notes that phone number is optional but improves accuracy. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but usage is clear.

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