max_drawdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the calculation purpose but lacks details on inputs (e.g., data format, time series requirements), outputs (though an output schema exists), error handling, or computational characteristics (e.g., performance, assumptions). This is inadequate for a tool with zero 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Calculates') and resource ('Maximum Drawdown'), making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal brevity.

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 (a financial calculation), no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's effective use.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it could mention implicit inputs (e.g., data context). Since no parameters exist, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as the description doesn't contradict the schema.

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 'Calculates Maximum Drawdown' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Calculates') and resource ('Maximum Drawdown'), which is a financial metric. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'portfolio_risk', 'var', or 'rolling_stats' that also compute financial risk metrics, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific calculation.

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. With siblings like 'portfolio_risk', 'var', and 'rolling_stats' that handle related financial analyses, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.

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