list_risk_statements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful domain context — that these are reusable descriptions referenced by Risk records — but says nothing about result shape, pagination, or whether the library is shared/customizable.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource, table name, and referential role are packed in without redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, this is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is the absence of guidance on when to choose this versus get_risk_statement or list_risks.

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 both parameters documented inline (name LIKE match, limit default/max). The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (List) and resource (Risk Statement library), and adds the underlying table (sn_risk_definition) plus the key relationship — reusable risk descriptions referenced by Risk records. This clearly separates it from the singular sibling get_risk_statement, though it never explicitly contrasts with it.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_risk_statement (fetch one) or list_risks (list Risk records themselves). Usage is only implied by the plural verb 'List' and the 'library' framing.

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