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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description adds real behavioral context by declaring the tool descriptive ('no forecast, no advice') and explaining that supplying amounts switches the crisis output into money terms. It does not cover latency, aggregation limits, or failure behavior, but for a read-only aggregate nothing critical is missing.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the routing rule; every sentence carries information. The output enumeration slightly duplicates the output schema, and the sentence is long, but there is no filler.

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 2-parameter tool with one required nested object, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything else needed: scope, routing, descriptive framing, and the amount-vs-weight consequence. Nothing required to call it correctly is absent.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description frames the weight-vs-amount parameter decision as an output-selection choice ('Give amounts to get losses in money') rather than raw syntax — a meaning an agent can act on without reading the schema. The base currency note largely restates the schema, which caps the score below 5.

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 ('complete measurement of one portfolio in a single call') and then enumerates the exact outputs (independent bets, risk-out-of-line holding, look-through companies, crisis drawdown/recovery, numbered report). This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like portfolio_structure or past_crises without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing rule: 'Use it when the reader asks broadly about a portfolio; for one question the narrower tools answer faster' followed by the four named alternatives. Both the when and the when-not (with named substitutes) are given.

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