Generate Risk Recommendation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds behavioral value by explaining that the tool synthesizes multiple assessments into one of four final decisions. It does not detail internal weighting or decision rules, but that is not necessary given the output schema and annotation coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the exact action and object. The second sentence adds the aggregator context and output options without any filler, making every sentence informative.

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 14-parameter aggregator, the description clearly conveys what the inputs represent and what the output will be, while the output schema covers return structure. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly instructing the agent to run the sibling assessment tools first, but the aggregator language makes that reasonably clear.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only groups the parameters at a high level ('DTI, LTV, credit, income stability, asset sufficiency') without adding new semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate'), names the resource ('risk recommendation'), and clearly identifies the tool as an aggregator that combines DTI, LTV, credit, income, and asset assessments. This makes it easy to distinguish from the sibling individual assessment tools. It also lists the four possible recommendation outcomes, further clarifying the tool's exact purpose.

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 frames the tool as the final aggregation step over individual risk assessments, so an agent can infer it should be used after the component tools have produced their ratings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'aggregator tool' phrasing provides clear contextual guidance.

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