risk_drawdown

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

The description details what the tool returns (max drawdown, duration, recovery time, etc.), adding value beyond annotations which already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. It accurately describes the computation without contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences: first names the function, second provides usage and output. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

With a single parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is adequately complete. It specifies input format and output metrics, though order or temporal assumptions could be clarified.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of 'equity_curve' as 'Array of portfolio equity values over time.' The tool description adds 'Provide an array of returns' but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond 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 clearly identifies the tool as performing 'Drawdown decomposition with underwater curve' and lists specific outputs (max drawdown, duration, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling risk tools like correlation, kelly, or portfolio by focusing exclusively on drawdown 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?

The description explicitly states 'Use when analyzing drawdown characteristics of a return series,' providing clear context. It does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives, but the guidance is direct and sufficient given the sibling tools.

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