dms_risk_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it is a query (read operation) to a PostgreSQL database with 8,288 risks, which implies safety but does not confirm idempotency, mention authentication needs, rate limits, or potential performance (e.g., slow on large result sets). The return format is hinted (risk code, title, scores, ratings, status) but not fully specified. Basic behavioral context is present but insufficient for a tool without annotation support.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the resource (Bangladesh legal/compliance risk register), notes the data size (8,288 risks), lists all filter dimensions, and summarizes return fields. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy. Highly efficient.

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 no output schema, the description covers return fields (risk code, title, scores, ratings, status) sufficiently. The lack of usage guidance against sibling tools and no explanation of risk score/rating interpretation are minor gaps, but for a straightforward query tool the description is mostly complete. It would benefit from a brief note on primary key (risk code) or result order.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides – it merely groups filters by mention. The baseline of 3 applies, and no extra meaning (e.g., format hints, required conditions, default behaviors) is added.

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 a specific resource – the Bangladesh legal/compliance risk register – with explicit filter dimensions (keyword, category, SBU) and return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dms_search (general search) and dms_legal_risk (possibly legal-specific risks). The verb 'Query' and focused resource name provide precise 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 implies usage context: use when needing risk register data filtered by keyword/category/SBU. However, it does not contrast with alternatives (e.g., dms_search, dms_legal_register) or give when-not-to-use guidance. No explicit exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving an agent to infer context from sibling names.

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