Get Fraud Assessment

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true`, and the description reinforces 'read-only', which is consistent. The description adds the scope 'one tenant-scoped operator DID', which provides context beyond annotations, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like idempotency or caching behavior.

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?

Single sentence, 12 words, front-loaded with the main purpose. Very concise, but the brevity sacrifices some detail (e.g., no parameter hints).

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?

Tool has an output schema (unknown), so return values are covered. However, description does not mention optionality or constraints of `score_version`, nor does it specify the format of `operator_did`. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 0% meaning the description adds minimal parameter detail. It mentions 'operator DID' implicitly but does not explain `score_version` or parameter format/constraints. The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'read-only fraud assessment' for a specific scope ('one tenant-scoped operator DID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `paybond_get_fraud_metrics` and `paybond_get_intent` by specifying the object type and scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., `paybond_get_fraud_metrics`, `paybond_get_intent`), the agent would benefit from explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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