list_risks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — results are ordered by most recently updated — but says nothing about the default page size or the 25/1000 limit ceiling, which matters for a list tool that could return thousands of rows.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the identity and table name front-loaded before the filtering and ordering facts. Every clause carries information.

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?

With full schema coverage, read-only annotations, and no output schema, an agent has nearly everything needed to call this correctly. The remaining gap is that ordering is mentioned but return shape and default result count are not, minor for a straightforward list 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including limit, query, and display_value is already documented in the schema. The description restates three filters (state, entity, category) without adding syntax, value formats, or behavior beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 and resource and pins it to the underlying table (sn_risk_risk), plus a scope qualifier ('quantitative risk register entry') that separates it from the sibling list_risk_statements and list_risk_criteria. It never explicitly says to use get_risk for a single record, so the differentiation from get_risk is left implicit.

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 tells the agent it can filter by state, related Entity, or category, which implies the retrieval scenario, but it never states when to choose this over list_risk_statements, list_risk_criteria, or get_risk. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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