local_risk_france_explain_scope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'explains', which implies a safe, read-only operation, but it doesn't mention any side effects, network requests, or response format. For a simple explanatory tool, this is acceptable but not deeply transparent. It doesn't contradict annotations (none exist).

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and usage guidance. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise.

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 tool's trivial complexity (no params, no output schema), the description provides enough context for an agent to know when to call it. It would be slightly better if it hinted at what the explanation covers (e.g., list of sources or usage patterns), but it is sufficiently complete for its simple role.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. It correctly omits parameter details.

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's purpose: it explains what the MCP is useful for and how to combine sources. The verb 'explain' and specific resources ('MCP', 'sources') make it distinct from sibling tools that fetch data. It's unambiguous and differentiates from the other tools.

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: it's for an agent to understand how to combine sources, likely before using other tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The guidance is clear enough for this self-explanatory meta-tool, though it could explicitly say 'use this to get an overview before querying data'.

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