Your effective risk limits (kobo; 0 = no limit)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: exceeding a limit causes transfers and refunds to be refused with `403 risk_limit_exceeded`, while received payments over `high_value_payment` are only flagged. That consequence detail materially helps an agent interpret results.

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 first sentence is a verbatim restatement of the title, and the second sentence repeats the unit and the '0 = no limit' rule already given. Only the final clause about 403 refusals and flagged high-value payments earns its place, so roughly half the text is redundancy.

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 and no parameters, the description does not explain which named limits the response contains (transfer, refund, high_value_payment thresholds, etc.) or their structure. It covers the enforcement semantics well but leaves the return shape underspecified for a tool whose entire value is the returned values.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The 'in this mode' phrasing usefully signals that results are scoped to the current API mode (e.g., sandbox vs live) without any argument being supplied.

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 states the resource ('Your effective risk limits in this mode, in kobo') and its unit, so an agent knows this is a read of applied limits rather than configured policies. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as list_risk_events or set_customer_risk_status, leaving the agent to infer that this one returns current thresholds.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no pointer to the alternative risk tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to set_customer_risk_status from the name alone.

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