check_tool_risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction exists; however, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose, such as return semantics, prerequisites, or side-effect information. It does not enhance the safety profile beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and focus, which is ideal for a simple metadata lookup tool.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter), annotations covering read-only safety, and the presence of an output schema, the brief description is largely sufficient. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'guardrail requirements' means or that it accepts a tool name, but the schema covers the latter.

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 parameter semantics are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning for tool_name beyond the schema's example, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Check') and the resource ('risk classification and guardrail requirements for a tool'). It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling get_guardrail_status beyond the per-tool scope implied by its name and tool_name parameter.

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, when not to use it, or how it relates to alternatives such as get_guardrail_status. The description only states what the tool does, leaving 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.