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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral semantics: hedges are drawdown-normalised, parent forwards are listed once at remaining notional, and child draws are excluded to match the dashboard hedge book — details an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the sentences earn their place by explaining the drawdown-normalisation rule. The trailing enumeration of return fields (coverage, policy_band, residual_coverage, drawdowns, hedge_mark_to_market) is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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 read-only portfolio tool with a full schema and an output schema, the definition covers the data semantics an agent needs (normalisation, dashboard alignment, permission-free access) without over-explaining return values. Minor gaps like pagination or portfolio size limits remain unaddressed.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only gestures at filtering via the 'hedge ratio on EUR' example and adds no format, default, or syntax detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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 (returns) and resource (open forward contracts and hedges) and enumerates the key fields returned (maturity, notional, contracted rate, mark-to-market). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as get_fx_exposure or get_protection_builder_snapshot, which address exposure or candidate trades rather than the live hedge book.

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?

Gives a concrete usage scenario ('what is my current hedge ratio on EUR?') and clarifies it works without execute permissions, which helps an agent choose it over an execution-oriented tool. It stops short of naming a specific alternative sibling or stating when-not-to-use it.

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