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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the async MCP Tasks execution detail, but does not disclose return behavior, output format, or other operational characteristics. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description adds only modest behavioral context.

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 no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the async execution note is relevant and concise.

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 parameter schema is rich and annotations cover safety, but there is no output schema and the description does not characterize the return value or result shape. For an analysis tool, an agent might need more clarity on what the response contains, though the core invocation context is adequately established.

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%, with each parameter documented including examples, defaults, and descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool analyzes a multi-position FX book for concentration, stress exposure, and event-driven catalyst risk. This is a specific verb and resource with enough detail to distinguish it from many siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 mentions that the tool supports MCP Tasks for async execution when clients send task-augmented requests, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like fx_backtest_task, event_impact_replay_task, or fx_trade_setup_task, nor does it state any exclusions.

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