sentinel_current_risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully declare the tool is read-only and publicly accessible via GET, which tells the agent it is a safe, unauthenticated call. It adds nothing about rate limits, error behavior, caching, or data freshness, so the disclosure is partial rather than rich.

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?

One tightly packed sentence that front-loads the scope (7-day forecast, one country) and uses a colon list for the return contents, with no filler. It is dense but every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the return payload (probability, interval, risk band, contributions, similar incident, evidence links). What remains missing is routing guidance against the many risk-related siblings and any note on freshness or update cadence.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents country_code (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2). The description adds no format hints or examples beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource: a 7-day censorship-event forecast for one country, and enumerates the outputs (probability, 90% interval, risk band, feature contributions, similar incident, evidence links). It is clearly scoped, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_risk_forecast, so an agent cannot be certain which to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_risk_forecast, sentinel_batch_risk, or get_high_risk_countries. The only usage signal is the trailing 'Read-only public GET', which hints at auth but not selection context.

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