get_user_risk_factors

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

Annotations already establish read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the output is a list of named educational factorsasi and that no risk score is computed. This clarifies the tool's operational scope without contradicting the 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?

Single sentence with the core operation first and a key exclusion second. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple one-parameter read-only list operation, the description is sufficient: it names the resource, the user scope, and the non-scoring behavior. It could be slightly more specific about the output shape, but the low complexity and explicit 'List ... factors' make this 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 coverage is complete for userId, including pattern and required status. The description only adds that the resource is user-specific, which is mild additional context. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 ('List') and resource ('named educational skin-health factors on a user profile'), and explicitly disambiguates from scoring tools by saying it does not calculate a risk score. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like assess_risk_from_factors and get_condition_risk_factors.

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 gives clear context: this tool lists factors rather than scoring them axes. The negative clause 'Does not calculate a risk score' signals when this tool is NOT appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative siblings, but the exclusion is concrete enough for an agent to route correctly.

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