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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the default-to-synthetic path when request is null, the permission gate, and the explicit caveat that rights_confirmed 'does not verify a licence' — a useful disclosure about what the flag does not do. It says nothing about compute cost or grid-size implications (up to 101x101 shocks over 10,000 positions), which matter for an expensive revaluation call.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool computes before moving to invocation conditions and the legal caveat. No filler; the slight awkwardness of 'against delta-gamma-vega' costs a little clarity but nothing is redundant.

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 tool with a deep nested request schema and an output schema (so return values need no prose), the description covers the synthetic-vs-licensed split and the rights gate but leaves shock unit conventions, data_mode semantics, and result interpretation unaddressed. An agent could invoke it, but would likely mis-specify shock magnitudes or data_mode without inspecting the schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden, and it does explain both top-level parameters: request=null triggers the synthetic example, and rights_confirmed gates supplied data. However, the large nested ScenarioGridRequest (data_mode synthetic vs user-licensed, spot_shocks/vol_shocks units, currency, as_of, underlyings, positions) is entirely undocumented, so an agent must reverse-engineer the most consequential fields from JSON Schema titles alone.

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?

The description states a specific verb and method ('Full revaluation of an options book over a spot and vol shock grid') and contrasts it with an approximation ('against delta-gamma-vega'), so the agent knows this is the repricing engine rather than a greeks-based sensitivity. It does not name a sibling tool, so the differentiation from risk_derivatives_greeks or risk_stress must be inferred from method rather than stated.

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?

It gives concrete conditional usage: omit 'request' to run the shipped synthetic example, or supply data only with permission and rights_confirmed=true. What is missing is any guidance on choosing this over sibling stress/scenario tools (risk_stress, risk_scenario_scale, risk_derivatives_greeks), leaving the broader tool-selection decision to the agent.

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