check_disclosure_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the purpose and input parameters, but fails to disclose what 'risk' entails, whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or limitations. There is no mention of what happens if both parameters are provided or neither.

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 concise, with a single main sentence followed by a clean parameter list with examples. There is no wasted text, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The tool has two optional parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it leaves out important context such as what risk criteria are used, how to handle missing inputs, and precedence when both parameters are provided (though 'used when no receipt number' implies rcept_no takes precedence). These gaps make it adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section clearly explains both parameters: rcept_no is a 14-digit DART receipt number, and report_name is the disclosure title used when no receipt number is provided. This adds meaningful context beyond the minimal schema.

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 'analyzes' and resource 'risk of the disclosure', making it clear that the tool assesses risk for a DART disclosure. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like check_disclosure_anomaly or analyze_company_risk, which may also involve risk assessment.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It only states that the tool uses a receipt number or title, but that's parameter usage, not tool-selection criteria. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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