Risk Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to add safety information. The description adds the concept of 'element-based' and 'safeguards', which provides some behavioral context, but it does not elaborate on what exactly is computed or the nature of the safeguards.

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 very concise (one line + example), but the example is lengthy and not structured. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but the example could be integrated better. Still, it is efficient with no wasted words.

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 description lacks details about the output format, the nature of 'recommended safeguards', or how the risk tolerance is presented. With no output schema, the agent has insufficient context to interpret the result. The example only shows input, not output.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a concrete example request body, which helps illustrate parameter usage but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. 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?

The description 'Element-based risk tolerance + recommended safeguards' clearly states the tool's output and methodology, distinguishing it from siblings like financial_risk_tolerance. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself within the business tool group, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as financial_risk_tolerance or other business-related tools. No context for selection is given.

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