check_fraud_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a non-destructive analysis by saying 'Analyze ... and return/fraud risk score', but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it blocks anything, or what data sources it consults. The core behavior is clear, but the safety profile is left to inference.

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 concise sentence with the action and timing front-loaded. There is no filler. The only minor flaw is the slightly awkward phrase 'return/fraud risk score,' which momentarily suggests 'return' might be a verb, but overall the structure is efficient and scannable.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does and when to use it, but it omits essential interpretation of the returned 'return/fraud risk score'—there is no indication of range, direction (higher vs. lower risk), or units. Since there is no output schema to compensate, this is a meaningful gap.

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 already fully documents the only parameter 'phone' ('11-digit Bangladeshi phone number to evaluate'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds context that the phone relates to delivery history, but it doesn't add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Analyze'), a concrete resource ('Bangladeshi customer phone number delivery history'), and a clear output ('return/fraud risk score'), all tied to a distinct moment ('before dispatching'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_couriers, create_parcel, track_parcel, and get_balance, which have entirely different purposes.

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 phrase 'before dispatching' provides clear, actionable context for when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling tools are so functionally distinct that no ambiguity exists. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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