analyze

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

Discloses no live source retrieval and no advice. Explains behavior when API key is unset. Mentions auditable and evidence discipline. Lacks detail on potential limitations like hallucination but overall sufficient given no annotations.

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?

Description is a single, well-structured paragraph of ~80 words. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by use cases, output, and limitations. Every sentence adds value, though could be broken into bullet points.

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 one parameter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, output (memorandums), and limitations. References external schema for request structure, which is adequate for a complex 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 coverage is 100% as the single parameter is described. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema by referencing an external schema file. Baseline 3 applies; no significant enhancement.

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?

Description clearly states the tool generates an auditable strategic-risk memo from a structured Agenda request, listing specific risk areas (sanctions, regulatory, etc.) and distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_memo which validate rather than generate.

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 states when to use: for strategic-risk questions needing a memo with assumptions and scenarios. Adds exclusion 'no legal, compliance, financial, or investment advice' but does not explicitly name alternatives from sibling list.

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