detect_fraud_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the tool analyzes fraud risk but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., risk score, flags). This is a significant gap for an analysis tool.

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, concise sentence that states the core function without any filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what results the user can expect. It does not mention return values, how to interpret risk indicators, or any behavioral context. Given the tool's fraud analysis nature, this is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters with clear descriptions ('Payment ID to analyze', 'Include action recommendations'), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Analyze payment for fraud risk indicators' clearly identifies the verb (Analyze), the resource (payment), and the specific focus (fraud risk indicators). This is unique among sibling tools, which are mostly payment lifecycle operations, so it distinguishes the tool effectively.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts such as 'use before creating a payment' or 'for suspicious transactions.' The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the generic phrase.

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