risk_assessment

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is read-only. The description adds the DINGDAWG_API_KEY requirement, which is essential behavioral context beyond annotations. It also notes the AI-powered nature, implying non-deterministic output. However, it does not mention potential latency, cost, or error behavior, so 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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds a critical prerequisite. No fluff, front-loaded with the most important info. Perfectly sized.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what the result looks like (score, rating, report). The agent may need to guess. While purpose is clear, return format is absent. Considering annotations cover side effects, a 3 is fair.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics; it only repeats the general purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 performs 'financial risk assessment' for portfolios, investments, or business decisions. It uses a specific verb (assess) and resource (financial risk), distinct from siblings like compliance_check or budget_forecast. The target domain is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use (when risk assessment is needed) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state exclusions. No guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It does note the API key requirement, which is a prerequisite, but that's more behavioral than usage guidance.

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