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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the batch-computation behavior and the exact return shape (array of { deltaPct, exitPrice, netPnl, roe }), which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the trigger, then the return shape. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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 7-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the crucial missing piece: the return value structure. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it could say more about how the fee/contractType parameters affect results.

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 all seven parameters (including enums for side and contractType, and the -100 delta constraint) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (compute PnL) and resource (scenario analysis over multiple price-change percentages), which is a clear purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like workflow.run_pnl_planning or workflow.run_forex_scenario, so it lands just below the top tier rather than at 5.

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?

Provides a concrete usage trigger with a natural-language example ("show me my P&L if BTC moves -10%, -5%, +5%, +10%"), which makes the use case unambiguous. However it names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use guidance, despite several sibling PnL/scenario tools.

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