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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that the stress test is run internally and explicitly lists the violation conditions (worst stress drawdown, short horizon, liquidity). It also clarifies the output nature ('A HARD GATE, not a score; Descriptive, not advisory'), which aligns with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint and adds context about the result framing.

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 compact—four sentences—and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence contributes either the operation, input guidance, behavioral logic, or output characterization, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, including the internal stress test and the specific IPS violation checks. It also clarifies the hard-gate nature and the distinction from advisory tools, making it self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates parameter examples and semantics already present in the schema (e.g., 'max_drawdown_tolerance as a fraction e.g. 0.15', liquidity_need values), and does not add meaningful new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 phrase 'Check a portfolio against an Investment Policy Statement' and clearly states its role as a 'planning-step constraint check (hard gate)'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_stress_test and portfolio_stress_test by stating it is 'A HARD GATE, not a score' and by focusing on IPS compliance rather than general stress testing.

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?

It provides strong timing guidance ('BEFORE accepting it — the planning step a proper process does FIRST') and clarifies that it is 'Descriptive, not advisory', which implies it is not for generating recommendations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or enumerate specific when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a full 5.

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