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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the simulation nature: user-supplied linear shocks, no live data, and no liquidation/probability modeling. This gives the agent an accurate mental model of the tool's behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 with zero fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by two clarifying constraints. Every sentence earns its place and adds distinct information.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally describe the return structure. It lists output categories ('P&L, equity and gross asset/venue concentration') but not their formatting or how they are organized. It also gives no guidance on parameter construction beyond what the schema field names imply. For a computation tool with nested inputs, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter-meaning burden. It clarifies that 'price_change_pct' represents a linear shock, 'up to twenty exposures' bounds the positions array, and the computed outputs are P&L, equity, and concentration. However, it does not explain optional fields like 'venue' or 'cost_usd', nor how they interact with the core calculation, so it only partially compensates.

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 action ('Caller-input linear price shocks') and resource ('crypto portfolio'), with explicit scope ('up to twenty exposures') and output categories ('P&L, equity and gross asset/venue concentration'). It also differentiates from siblings by clarifying that symbols are scenario labels, not live coverage, and that no liquidation or probability model is included.

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 gives clear contextual boundaries: it is a scenario-based stress test, not a live market tool ('Symbols are scenario labels, not live coverage') and not a risk model ('No liquidation or probability model'). It implies when to use this tool (for hypothetical linear shocks) and when not to, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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