get_protocol_risk_factors

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by warning that discovery_heuristic_score is an 'editorial heuristic, NOT live Trail Heat' — a data-quality caveat an agent would otherwise misuse as a live risk metric. It also names the backing API and authority endpoints.

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 substance is two tight sentences, but the bracketed metadata preamble (capability status, tier name, API and authority paths) is placed before the actual purpose statement and pushes the useful content back. That prefix is tooling metadata rather than selection-relevant 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the return fields, and annotations carry the safety profile. Missing only error/empty-catalog behavior and whether the protocolId is validated, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already defines protocolId as the ID to audit. The description adds only that the lookup is against 'the catalog', not any format, source, or fallback behavior for an invalid ID. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Get protocol risk indicators from the catalog') followed by an enumeration of the exact fields returned (sybil risk label, status, category, chains, discovery_heuristic_score). It explicitly differentiates itself from get_trail_heat, which is the nearest conceptual sibling.

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?

It clearly routes the agent to get_trail_heat for 'canonical quantitative scores', which is the key exclusion. It does not, however, address the other risk-adjacent siblings (audit_sybil_risk, analyze_protocol_risk, run_risk_sentinel), so the when-not guidance is partial.

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