get_risk_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not mention behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it requires advisor existence. The description only states what it returns.

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?

Single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the purpose. No extraneous words.

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 an output schema present, the return values are implied. The description covers key components (score, factors, severity, recommendation). However, it lacks context on when this is appropriate (e.g., IAR vs firm) and if the advisor must exist.

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 only parameter 'crd_number' is not explained in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, meaning no description in schema either. The description should clarify that crd_number is the unique identifier for the advisor.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed risk assessment for an investment advisor', specifying the contents: risk score, risk factors with severity levels, and recommendation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_firm_info or lookup_advisor by focusing on risk profile.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when you need a full advisor profile vs risk assessment). No context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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