risk_assessment__annualized_volatility

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

No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits. It fails to mention input expectations (e.g., periodic_returns format), return value, or any side effects. The agent cannot infer whether this is a read-only computation or requires authentication.

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 extremely short, but at the cost of being uninformative. Genuine conciseness would convey the purpose and key details in few words. This is underspecification, not conciseness.

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 two parameters (one required), no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is critically incomplete. It should specify the computation (e.g., standard deviation of returns scaled by sqrt(periods_per_year)), required input format, and typical output. Without these, the agent cannot use the tool 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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (periodic_returns, periods_per_year). The name hints at volatility but adds no meaning beyond the raw schema. The agent would not know what data to pass in the array.

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 is a tautology: '[risk-assessment] annualized_volatility' repeats the tool name. It does not state what the tool does, such as calculating annualized volatility from periodic returns. There is no differentiation from sibling tools like historical_var or parametric_var.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are other risk assessment and volatility-related tools, but no context is given for when annualized_volatility is appropriate.

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