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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the scenario set is static and pre-defined, and the projected impact is a heuristic model rather than a prediction. It stops short of describing what the response contains (direction, magnitude, confidence).

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the epistemic caveat follows immediately as the most important qualifier.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so only at a conceptual level (heuristic projected impact). For a read-only, two-parameter tool this is close to complete, but the shape of the result remains unspecified.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning by establishing that scenarioId comes from a fixed, pre-defined catalog — i.e., no custom or ad-hoc scenarios are accepted, which the enum alone does not state. The ticker parameter's role as the 'real live quote' target is also clarified.

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: it runs a pre-defined hypothetical shock scenario against a real live quote. The scope (static catalog, hypothetical vs. live price) makes it easy to tell apart from siblings like track_volatility_surface or generate_trade_execution_signals, 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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'hypothetical shock scenario ... against a real live quote' suggests stress-testing a position or ticker, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing guidance relative to the many analysis siblings.

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