evaluate_fdia

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a non-mutating operation. The description adds some value by stating the evaluation is deterministic and exposing the equation F = (D^I) * A, but it does not explain what F represents, how failures are handled, or what side effects may occur.

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 dense sentence with no filler and front-loads the core purpose. However, the formula and 'enterprise custom policy rules' feel under-explained for an agent that may need to act on the result.

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?

With full schema coverage, an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the structural context is strong. Still, the description lacks usage guidance and does not explain the meaning or consequence of F, leaving some ambiguity about what an agent should do with the result.

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 formula adds a cross-parameter relationship hint, but the description does not provide materially new parameter semantics beyond what each field's description already states.

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 evaluates action requests and distinguishes it through the specific ZK-FDIA formula and enterprise custom policy rules. It is not a tautology, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like configure_policy.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, what conditions are required, or when not to use it. The description implies an evaluation context but leaves the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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