get_risk_score

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint/openWorldHint) by disclosing the exact data sources used, the fields returned, and critically that risk_level polarity is inverted relative to check_entity's trust_level — a subtlety that would otherwise cause misinterpretation. It also states what is deliberately absent (recommendation, factors).

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the scope boundary and the differing-from-sibling caveat. Every clause conveys load-bearing information (scope, return fields, polarity warning, exclusions) with no filler.

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 no output schema available, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields and their meaning. Combined with the scope restriction and the polarity warning, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (country as ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, entity_name as full legal name), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, which matches the baseline of 3 when structured data does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('risk score from sanctions screening and country risk') and immediately bounds the scope against a named sibling ('without the register or domain lookups of check_entity'). An agent can distinguish it from check_entity, get_trust_score and sanctions_preview without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'without the register or domain lookups of check_entity' implicitly tells the agent to pick this tool when the lighter sanctions+country check suffices, and names the alternative. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when / avoid this when' statement or cost/latency rationale, so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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