get_risk_calculator_details

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context that it returns the calculator group, rules, weighted risk fields, and score-to-weight bands in one call, though it omits error or permission behavior.

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?

Front-loads the returned components and the primary diagnostic use case, then states the accepted input forms. The sentences are dense but every element is useful and there is no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the four returned data sets and the intended diagnostic use case, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It could still clarify output shape or not-found behavior, so it is not fully complete.

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%, and the sole parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that a sys_id or exact calculator name is accepted, adding no new semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: explaining how a USEM Risk Calculator computes its score, and enumerates the returned artifacts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve a single USEM rule or list rules.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case as answering "why is the risk score N?" and notes the aggregation in one call. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use get_usem_rule instead.

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