List risk events (blocked and flagged activity)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description's help. What the description adds is domain semantics about which events appear in the result set and why they were flagged, which is genuine value. It does not discuss result ordering, default limit behavior, or whether flagged vs blocked are distinguishable in the response, so with annotations carrying the safety burden a 3 is right.

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 content is short and front-loaded, but the opening sentence 'List risk events (blocked and flagged activity).' duplicates the title field and is immediately restated by 'List risk events: ...'. Two of the description's sentences are redundant with each other and with the title, so it wastes space despite its brevity.

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?

For a read-only list tool with five optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: what a 'risk event' actually is and the categories that produce them, which effectively stands in for return-value documentation. Remaining gaps are minor — result ordering and how blocked versus flagged entries are represented — and an agent could call it correctly without them.

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%, including the review_status enum values, the date-time filter example, and both pagination cursors. The description's only parameter-related statement ('Filter by review_status') restates what the schema already documents, adding no format, default, or interaction detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the parameter work.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List risk events') and then defines the resource concretely: money movements blocked by risk limits and payments flagged for review, with the trigger reasons (high value, customer velocity, blocked customers). That is far more useful than a tautology. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing this list from neighbors such as get_risk_limits or list_payments, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Filter by review_status', which hints at the triage workflow (open/cleared/confirmed). There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to reach for get_risk_limits or set_customer_risk_status instead, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing risk monitoring enabled.

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