risk_assessment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return content (risk levels, classification, specific requirements), which is real behavioral value. However, it does not state that this is a read-only/computational operation, whether unknown use cases fall back to templates or custom_description, or whether the assessment is deterministic.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the deliverable second; no filler. It could have used the second sentence's space to cover routing or fallback behavior, but nothing present is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does describe the return values, which is the right call. Still, for an unannotated tool with no output schema it omits fallback behavior for non-template use cases and any guidance on choosing jurisdictions, leaving meaningful gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents use_case, jurisdictions, and custom_description with examples. The description only echoes these ('use case', 'specified jurisdictions') and adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Assess compliance risks for an AI use case across specified jurisdictions,' plus the output shape (risk levels, classification, requirements). An agent can distinguish it from get_regulations or regulation_summary, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus get_regulations, jurisdiction_compare, or regulation_summary, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'based on use case,' which is thin for a domain with five sibling tools.

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