get_risk_score

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

Describes the output as a score 0–100 with a four-factor breakdown, and explains behavior when version is omitted. Although no annotations exist, the description adequately conveys the tool's read-only nature and scope.

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 sentences, no redundant words. First sentence states purpose and output, second provides a usage tip. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return format (score and breakdown) sufficiently. It covers the key usage scenarios and parameter behavior, though it could briefly mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the parameters (product slug, optional version). The description repeats the hint about omitting version but adds no new semantic detail beyond that.

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?

Clearly states what the tool does: 'Get the proprietary EOL Risk Score™ (0–100) for a product version' with a breakdown of four factors. It distinguishes from siblings like list_products and get_product_lifecycle by focusing on risk quantification.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use ('Omit version to score the product's highest-risk release' and 'use this to quantify how dangerous it is to keep running something'), though it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention siblings as alternatives.

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