get_risk_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions the required license and the endpoint, but does not disclose response format, error behavior, or explicitly state that it is a read-only operation (though 'Retrieve' implies it). This provides some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 relatively concise and well-structured with a heading, description, license note, endpoint, and example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The redundant title 'Get Risk Score' takes a small amount of space but is not detrimental.

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?

For a simple single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage (example, license). However, it lacks return format details and does not differentiate this tool from siblings like get_risky_users or get_risky_hosts. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'id' parameter, including format details and constraints. The description adds an example request body but no new semantics beyond what the schema contains. Baseline 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 'Retrieve the risk score of a specific user or endpoint in your environment, along with the reason for the score.' This uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and identifies the resource ('risk score') and scope ('specific user or endpoint'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_risky_users and get_risky_hosts which likely operate on lists.

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 usage by specifying 'specific user or endpoint' and provides an example request body. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The license requirement is a useful prerequisite but not a usage guideline.

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