document_risk_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds a disclaimer about not giving legal/tax advice, which is useful context but does not describe what happens during evaluation (e.g., what checks are performed, what the output looks like). No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key disclaimer. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 output schema exists (but not provided), the description could rely on it for return structure, but it fails to explain the evaluation criteria, expected input constraints, or how results are presented. The tool name suggests risk assessment, but the description lacks details on scope or behavior, leaving the agent underspecified for correct invocation.

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 input schema has three parameters (documentId, direction, confirm_read) with no descriptions, and the tool description does not mention or clarify any parameter purpose. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no guidance on parameter values or usage. This is a critical gap.

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 states the tool evaluates fiscal/technical document risks, with a disclaimer about not providing legal or tax advice. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on parsing, validation, or summaries. However, it does not elaborate on what types of risks are assessed.

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 only includes a disclaimer about legal/tax advice, but does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent lacks direction on when this tool is appropriate compared to sibling tools like 'validate_fiscal_document_consistency' or 'document_lifecycle_status'.

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