dms_legal_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation but does not state whether the query returns a fixed order, supports pagination beyond the limit parameter, or has any rate limits or authentication requirements. The absence of any side-effect or limitation detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence of 30 words, front-loaded with the action ('Query') and immediately specifying the target resource and key fields. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler. Perfectly concise for a straightforward query tool.

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 low complexity (4 optional parameters, no nested objects) and the lack of output schema, the description provides a good overview of the returned fields. Still, it could be more explicit about the response format (likely a list of objects) and whether the result ordering is deterministic. The mention of '63 risks' helps set expectations. Slightly incomplete but sufficient for a simple query tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with concise descriptions, meeting the baseline. The description does not add any additional context for parameters like sbu, limit, query, or min_rating beyond what the schema already provides. It lists output fields but that is unrelated to parameter semantics. Thus, no extra score is justified.

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 queries the 'Compliance Risk Register (63 risks)' and lists the fields returned. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose clear. However, given the sibling tool 'dms_risk_lookup' which may overlap, the description does not explicitly distinguish this tool from that one, preventing a score of 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., dms_risk_lookup, dms_legal_register). It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and the static register size, which is insufficient for confident selection.

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