assess_risk_from_factors

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral boundaries: it is educational, does not compute a risk score, and does not recommend urgency—all beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, and the critical limitation is stated immediately after, making the description highly scannable and easy to parse.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, input, and a key behavioral limitation. It does not describe the return format, but no output schema exists and the verb 'describe' implies descriptive text. Overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, with a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%: the riskFactorIds parameter is fully documented with an example array. The description only refers generically to 'a list of factor IDs' and adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('describe') and resource ('named educational skin-health factors'), and explicitly states what it does not do ('does not calculate a risk score or recommend urgency'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_risk_factors or classify_lesion_features, which imply different operations.

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 makes usage context clear: use when you have factor IDs and need educational descriptions of those factors. It explicitly excludes risk scoring and urgency assessment, serving as a when-not condition. However, it does not name an alternative tool for those cases, so the guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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