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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the purpose and usage trigger. It does not explain what the stress-test does (e.g., whether it runs simulations, returns risk metrics, or modifies any state), nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects. The lack of behavioral detail leaves an agent uncertain about the tool's execution model, especially since there is no output schema or parameter documentation to compensate.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by actionable usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff or redundancy—making it easy to scan and process.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and distinguishes an alternative. It would be slightly more complete if it hinted at what the stress-test yields (e.g., a risk assessment or scenario breakdown), but given the tool's simplicity and the strong usage context, it is largely sufficient.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to clarify, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, which is appropriate here; the description could have mentioned that the tool runs predefined scenarios without additional inputs, but its absence does not hinder parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('stress-test') and identifies the resource ('scenarios from the risk engine'), clearly stating the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool tengu_v2_crash_scenarios by explicitly contrasting 'stress-test scenarios' with 'replay specific historical crashes', preventing ambiguity.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call it when the user asks "what happens if things go bad?" before sizing risk') and names the alternative tool (tengu_v2_crash_scenarios) for a different use case. This is exactly the kind of contextual direction an agent needs to select between closely related tools.

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