umbrella_domain_risk_score

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it mostly restates the operation and adds a score-direction cue. It does not mention read-only status, authentication requirements, failure behavior, or score generation, so the burden is not met.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The useful interpretative cue ('higher = riskier') is included without bloating the text.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition leaves key context implicit: the output shape/range, parameter constraints, and the relationship to umbrella_domain_security_score are all absent. It is enough to guess the tool's basic function but not to use it with confidence among siblings.

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 does not compensate. It says 'for a domain' but gives no format, normalization, or eligibility criteria; the schema already labels the property 'domain', so no extra parameter meaning is added.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource: Cisco's risk score for a domain. It also clarifies the score's direction ('higher = riskier'), but does not distinguish this tool from the similarly named sibling umbrella_domain_security_score.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The sibling list includes umbrella_domain_security_score and umbrella_domain_categorization, and the description provides no conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to help an agent route between them.

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