risk_register

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only', and it explains that the output is the ledger's recorded Art. 9 risk register with specific aggregations, which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not address possible pagination, size, or staleness, but for a zero-argument read tool this is adequate.

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 one dense sentence that front-loads the resource, then proceeds through the key output dimensions and ends with the read-only qualifier. It contains no redundant words or filler; every clause conveys a distinct piece of 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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must explain what the caller gets back, and it does so in detail: latest entries, history length, review lag, and all requested count categories. It is slightly under-specified only regarding the presentation format, but nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter-level detail. With an empty input schema, the no-argument contract is self-evident; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 names the resource (Art. 9 risk register) and specifies the exact data points returned: latest entry per risk id, history length, days since last review, and the requested counts. It lacks an explicit action verb such as 'retrieve' or 'list', but the phrase 'as this ledger records it' plus 'Read-only' make the operation unambiguous. It also differentiates itself from generalist sibling reports by focusing narrowly on the risk register domains.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling report tools such as compliance_report, oversight_report, coverage, or governance_report. The phrase 'counts an assessor asks for' hints at an assessment context, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools are named.

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