risk_pillar_breakdown

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses key behavioral aspects: it returns individual pillar scores, trend direction, and specific data points. This sufficiently communicates what the tool does for a read-only operation, though it omits details like data freshness or rate limits.

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 concise with no extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose, then provides relevant detail in a well-structured manner. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers what the tool returns and its use. It fully addresses the need of the target user without requiring additional context.

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 description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by detailing the output structure (pillars, scores, trends, data points). According to guidelines, baseline for zero params is 4, and the description compensates well.

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 the tool returns a detailed breakdown of supply chain disruption risk by category, listing the four GDI pillars and their components. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual categories or aggregate indices.

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 specifies it is 'essential for supply chain managers who need to diagnose which risk category is elevated and why,' providing a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly advise against use when alternatives like get_energy_breakdown or commodity_price_monitor are more appropriate.

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