analyze_commercial_risk

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Analyze', implying a read-only operation, but does not state safety info, required permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool performing analysis.

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 a single concise sentence, but it fails to include essential details (parameters, usage context). It is short but under-informative, so it earns a middle score for efficiency at the cost of completeness.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the overall description is minimal. Given 13 sibling tools and 2 parameters, the description lacks details on scope, prerequisites, and specific use cases, making it incomplete for safe tool selection.

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 0%, and the description adds no information about parameters 'path' or 'include_data_files'. The agent cannot determine what values are valid or how parameters affect behavior.

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 'Analyze commercial licensing risk for a project.' clearly states a verb and resource, but it is generic and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_license_compatibility' or 'run_compliance_check'. The term 'commercial risk' is specific, but the description lacks scope or uniqueness.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with siblings like 'scan_directory' or 'validate_license_list'.

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