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

Annotations already assert readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that all figures are computed from one series and returned together in a single call, which is useful context, but it does not address assumptions constraining the input (e.g. that at least three periods are needed) or any performance/limit behavior.

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 lead phrase and the usage clause are front-loaded, and the long metric enumeration is compressed into one dense paragraph with no filler sentences. It is verbose but every listed metric does informational work, so it is appropriately sized rather than padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing return content by listing every metric returned. It leaves minor gaps (periodicity/units of the input series, the three-item minimum) that live only in the schema, but for a read-only analytics call it is largely self-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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so mar, benchmark_sharpe, periods_per_year and returns are all documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description only says figures come "from a single return series" and adds no interpretation of the optional knobs (e.g. how mar feeds Sortino, or benchmark_sharpe feeding PSR) beyond what the schema already states.

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 artifact ("core risk/return tearsheet from a single return series") and enumerates exactly which metrics are produced, so an agent knows this is a comprehensive stats bundle rather than a single-metric calculator. It only implicitly differentiates from siblings like run_sharpe_stats or run_portfolio_risk via "not just one metric" rather than naming them, keeping it at a 4.

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?

"Use when user asks for a full risk summary/report on a strategy or portfolio's returns, not just one metric" gives explicit when-to-use plus an exclusion criterion. It stops short of naming the alternative tools to reach for a single metric (e.g. run_sharpe_stats), so it is clear context without a full routing map.

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