cms_risk_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the data source and output fields but omits critical details: whether filters are AND/OR, what happens when no filter is given (return all 2,612 rows?), and default pagination behavior (limit defaults to 20 per schema but not stated). This ambiguity hinders safe invocation.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It wastes no words, but it could be improved by structuring into distinct purpose and usage sections. Still, it is efficient and immediately scannable.

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 tool's complexity (5 optional parameters, no output schema, 10 siblings, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of default behavior with no filters, output format, and whether filters are inclusive or exclusive. The mention of output fields is vague. A more complete description would cover these aspects to ensure correct agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with each parameter's purpose already clear. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only restating that filtering is by 'SBU, area, or topic' and listing output fields. It does not clarify parameter interactions (e.g., can they be combined?) or provide additional syntax context. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Look up Bangladesh legal risks from the risk register (2,612 rows) by SBU, area, or topic, with specific legal basis, possible liability/penalty, and risk level.' It uses a specific verb ('look up'), identifies the resource ('risk register'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'cms_search_policy' or 'cms_check_compliance' by focusing on a risk register with legal details.

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 its siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, when to avoid, or alternative tools. The use case is implied but not explicitly compared to other cms tools, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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