trip_risk_circuit_breaker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it discloses three key traits: irreversibility, scope ('in this process'), and what it affects ('new order attempts'). It does not cover operational details like idempotency or whether pending orders are affected, hence not a 5.

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?

One tightly written sentence with no filler; the core action and trigger are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential what, scope, and when. The 'reason' parameter semantics and a bit more operational context are absent, but the tool is simple enough that the missing detail is minor.

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 one required string 'reason' with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The name alone gives some clue, but the description was required to compensate for the schema gap and does not.

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?

States a specific verb ('block'), resource ('new order attempts'), and a critical modifier ('irreversibly'), plus the emergency context ('incident or anomaly'). This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like submit_paper_order or validate_order.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: 'use for an incident or anomaly.' It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the emergency context is sufficient to guide selection against the normal-flow siblings.

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