get_grc_risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying the return content (impact, likelihood, controls), which is not in the annotations. It doesn't describe error cases or pagination, but for a simple read tool this is acceptable.

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?

A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the tool's purpose and key return fields.

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 simple single-parameter get tool with read-only annotations, the description is complete. It specifies the identifier needed and the main fields returned. No output schema exists, but the description provides enough detail for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter, number_or_sysid, is described as 'Risk number or sys_id'. The description does not add additional semantic detail beyond this, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a single GRC risk with specific fields (impact, likelihood, controls). The verb 'Get' and resource 'GRC risk' distinguish it from sibling tools like list_grc_risks, which lists multiple risks, and create_grc_risk.

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 usage—fetching details for a specific risk—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over listing all risks or mention alternatives. It gives context about returned fields but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool names.

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