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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: no scenario probability is inferred or attached, and the licence disclaimer clarifies that rights_confirmed is an attestation, not verification. It does not describe result shape or how shocks map to positions, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the semantic caveat, then the default path, then the licence gate. Dense and mostly waste-free; 'this does not verify a licence' is terse but earns its place as a legal caveat.

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 zero-required-parameter tool with nested StressRequest definitions and an output schema, the description covers the gating logic and defaults adequately. Gaps remain around the data_mode enum and the required fields of a supplied request, which an agent must infer from schema titles.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains request omission and the meaning of rights_confirmed, but leaves data_mode's synthetic vs user-licensed distinction, nav, currency, and shock-key semantics to the schema's structural 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Apply explicit asset shocks to all linear positions', which signals the linear-instrument scope that the schema's instrument_type const enforces. It is distinct enough from reverse-stress and what-if siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 concrete when-to guidance for two modes: omit the request to run the bundled synthetic energy example, or supply data with rights_confirmed=true after confirming permission. It lacks explicit routing to sibling tools, but the mode-selection guidance is clear.

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