get_risk_forecast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the ML model and training data but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, limitations (e.g., accuracy, freshness), or performance characteristics. This leaves the agent with incomplete understanding.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, unique capability with model details, and a concrete example. No redundancy, front-loaded with key 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. Description covers purpose and use case but omits details about the return value (e.g., risk score, category) and any confidence measures. Adequate but not 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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description includes an ISO code example. The description adds context ('for a country') but does not augment parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a 7-day predictive censorship risk forecast for a country. Uses specific verb 'get' and resource description. 'UNIQUE CAPABILITY' helps distinguish from sibling forecast tools, though explicit differentiation from all siblings is not provided.

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?

Description implies usage for country-level medium-term risk forecasting with an example question, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like forecast_7day_shap or forecast_region. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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