CRA Audit Risk Assessment

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 accurately conveys that the tool is an assessment that computes a risk score and provides recommendations, implying a read-only analytical operation with no side effects. It does not explicitly state that no data is stored or modified, but the nature of the tool makes this clear enough.

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 two sentences that front-load the core purpose and output. Every word contributes value: it states the resource, the criteria, and the deliverables. No unnecessary details 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 description is sufficient for a tool with no output schema, as it explicitly says the result includes a risk score and mitigation recommendations. While it could add caveats about the assessment being an estimate or based on heuristics, the core function and output are clearly covered. Given the tool's complexity (12 params), the high schema coverage compensates for the lack of parameter detail in the description.

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 input schema includes descriptions for all 12 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain them. The description's reference to 'common triggers and red flags' is generic and adds no specific parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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's function: 'Assess your business's risk of being selected for a CRA audit based on common triggers and red flags.' It specifies the resource (CRA audit risk) and the action (assess), and it mentions the output (risk score and mitigation recommendations). This distinguishes it from siblings like tax_health_check or missing_receipts, which focus on different aspects.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when a business wants to evaluate its likelihood of a CRA audit based on red flags. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the highly specific purpose makes appropriate usage obvious. The absence of alternative pointers is a minor gap, not a failure.

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