umbrella_appdiscovery_app_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get risk details' and mentions the Postman alias; it does not describe the response shape, whether this is read-only beyond the verb, authentication needs, or any edge-case behavior. The alias note is useful but not behavioral transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding the valuable Postman alias disambiguation. There is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description provides sufficient intent and the alias clarification is helpful. The only minor gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not summarize typical return fields, but this is acceptable given the simplicity of the endpoint.

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 input schema already fully documents the only parameter, appId, with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('risk details for a specific discovered application'), making the tool's scope immediately clear. It also disambiguates the endpoint from similar sibling tools by emphasizing it operates on a single discovered application rather than a list or identities.

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 implies the correct use case: when you have a specific discovered application ID and need its risk details. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like umbrella_appdiscovery_applications or umbrella_appdiscovery_app_identities, nor does it state when not to use it.

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