Confirm Risk-Score Disclaimer

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

The description goes beyond the idempotentHint annotation by detailing exact behaviors: one-time confirmation per user (not per agent/call), permanence, audit-logging, returning the same audit_id on repeat calls, and the embedded disclaimer text preventing confirmation of unseen versions. It also states the OAuth/plan requirement and the legal declaration content, providing full behavioral disclosure.

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 paragraph but front-loads the primary purpose and then covers necessary details: scope, permissions, idempotency, legal content, and usage instruction. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, though it is somewhat dense and could be broken into bullet-like sections for readability.

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 confirmation tool with legal implications, the description is very complete. It covers when to invoke, authorization requirements, idempotency, audit behavior, the specific disclaimer content, and the version-matching mechanism. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, so no gaps remain.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining that the disclaimer text and version are embedded in the tool handler, so the agent does not need to guess or hardcode them. This clarifies the purpose of having no inputs and preempts potential confusion.

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 opens with a specific action ('Confirm the pre-screening disclaimer') and explicitly ties it to firmaradar_get_risk_score, clearly distinguishing this tool from its siblings. It also states the one-time, permanent nature, which adds purpose clarity beyond the title.

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 clear guidance: 'Call this tool only when the user has explicitly instructed you to confirm the disclaimer on their behalf.' It also mentions that it is 'required by firmaradar_get_risk_score' and notes prerequisites such as an OAuth token and plan with risk scoring enabled. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, though none seem necessary.

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