investor_scan_risks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation ('scan') but does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires special permissions. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it is almost too brief, lacking structure to break down details. Still, every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It does not explain return values, parameter formatting, or edge cases. An agent would struggle to use it correctly without additional context.

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 0% (the JSON schema has no parameter descriptions), and the tool description does not explain any of the three parameters. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone (e.g., 'account_ids', 'risk_types', 'severity_min'), which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'Scan portfolio risk signals' clearly indicates a verb ('scan') and a resource ('portfolio risk signals'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'investor_analyze_portfolio' or 'investor_explain_portfolio_change'. However, it lacks specificity on what 'scan' entails compared to analysis.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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