get_developer_risk_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Deterministic' and 'neutral wording, for reference', which hints at non-opinionated output, but does not disclose error handling, whether data is cached, or any side effects. The Pro tariff mention is a constraint but insufficient for complete transparency.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose, key metrics included, and usage context (Pro tariff). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 a single simple parameter and an output schema (though not shown) which likely details return fields. The description lists the metrics included, providing sufficient context for an agent to understand output. However, it omits potential error conditions or limitations, which are partially covered by the output schema.

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% for the single parameter 'inn', which already includes a description. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or format details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool produces a deterministic risk summary for a developer's portfolio, listing specific metrics (share of problematic objects, schedule shift, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_developer or get_project_declaration by focusing on aggregated risk metrics rather than individual project checks.

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 mentions 'Pro tariff' implying it is available only for Pro users, which provides a usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide criteria for when it is appropriate.

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