risk_stress-test

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns 'portfolio P&L under each scenario with component-level breakdown', but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, prerequisites) beyond what annotations provide.

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 consists of two short, focused sentences. The first states the tool's purpose, the second gives usage and output. No extraneous information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description mentions the return type (P&L per scenario with breakdown), which is helpful. It covers what to provide and what to expect, but could elaborate on how scenario shocks interact with position attributes.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions 'Provide portfolio weights, asset returns, and scenario definitions', which adds context but largely maps to schema properties. It does not introduce new meaning 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 states 'Portfolio stress test across multiple scenarios', specifying the verb (stress-test) and resource (portfolio). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'risk_portfolio' or 'risk_var-parametric' by focusing on multi-scenario stress testing.

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 says 'Use when stress-testing a portfolio against multiple scenarios', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of siblings implies this tool is for multi-scenario tests.

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