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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral detail that MCP Tasks are supported for async execution, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not describe return format, but this is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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 the main purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is concise and well-structured, earning its place without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity and the lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how the result is presented. It mentions async execution but does not clarify output behavior. The schema and annotations cover inputs and safety, but the missing return-value information leaves a clear gap.

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 (positions_json, horizon_events, stress_shock_pct) having descriptions and examples. The description adds high-level context by linking the parameters to concentration, stress, and catalyst risk, but it does not provide any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already contains.

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. The specific verb 'Analyze' and the resource scope distinguish it from sibling task tools like fx_backtest_task or macro_briefing_task.

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 implies usage for FX portfolio risk analysis, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The only usage-specific detail is 'Supports MCP Tasks for async execution when clients send task-augmented requests,' which addresses execution mode but not selection criteria.

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