check_risk_score

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes return values (score, band, trend, guidance) and implies read-only operation. Could mention lack of side effects, but sufficient.

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: first describes what is retrieved, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Returns risk score, band, trend, and guidance. No output schema, so description covers return values adequately. Could specify response format or prerequisites, but sufficient for a simple read tool.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage). With 0 params, baseline score is 4 as per guidelines. No additional parameter info needed.

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?

Description states specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'rolling 30-day risk score, risk band, drift trend'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (audit_log_append, verify_agent_scope) which serve different purposes.

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?

Explicitly states use case: 'decide whether to self-throttle, escalate to a human, or proceed normally'. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but context is clear.

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