assess_risk_from_factors

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 clearly states that the tool calculates and returns results, implying a non-mutating analysis operation, but it does not explicitly say whether it is read-only, what side effects or prerequisites exist, or how errors are surfaced. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the return value is stated immediately. Every phrase contributes useful 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?

For a tool with one simple required parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the input concept and the two key output components. It could go slightly further by mentioning where risk factor IDs come from or what the recommendations look like, but the current level is sufficient for straightforward invocation.

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%, and the schema already explains the 'riskFactorIds' array with an example. The description adds little beyond restating the concept of 'a list of risk factors,' so it does not meaningfully extend the parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Calculate') and a clear resource ('risk assessment based on a list of risk factors'), and states the output ('combined relative risk and recommendations'). This clearly distinguishes it from retrieval-style siblings like get_user_risk_factors or get_condition_risk_factors because it performs a calculation rather than a lookup.

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 the tool should be used when you have risk factor IDs and want a combined risk assessment, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools. Usage is inferable from the name and input schema, but not directly guided.

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