risk_assessment

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the types of risk signals but omits behavioral traits like whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, or data freshness. The safety score scale is mentioned (0-5) but not further explained.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) but at the cost of essential details. It earns its place by being brief, but more sentences would improve 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?

Given no output schema, two parameters, and many siblings, the description lacks sufficient detail. It does not explain how to interpret the safety score or differentiate from similar tools like score_company or analyze_company.

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 description does not mention any parameters despite schema having two parameters (ticker required, market optional). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 the tool returns risk signals (leverage, currency, concentration, regulation) and a safety score, clearly indicating the output. It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_company or score_company by focusing on risk, though it could specify the score range more explicitly.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as moat_assessment or score_company, nor does it mention prerequisites or context.

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