get_risk_policy

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explains the content and gives a usage directive, but it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or how the data should be interpreted. This is adequate but sparse.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a practical usage note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what is returned and how to use it. It could optionally note that it is a safe read-only call, but this is not essential given the output schema and lack of parameters.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so the description needs to add no parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 4 applies here because there is nothing to describe beyond what the schema already shows.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it retrieves the desk's standing risk limits along with the reasoning behind each. This specific verb+resource framing distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_financials or place_order, which address different domains.

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 provides explicit usage context: quote these limits verbatim when explaining a veto. While it does not name alternative tools, the veto-explanation scenario gives a concrete 'when to use' signal, which is more than many tool descriptions offer.

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