risk_var-parametric

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it uses normal or Student-t assumptions, but does not explain required sample size (min 10 returns) or other behavioral constraints. Some value added but not substantial.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, usage, and output. No extra words.

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?

The tool has full schema and annotations, but no output schema. The description covers main outputs (VaR, CVaR, distribution parameters) but misses details on distribution assumption selection and optional parameters like portfolio_value and holding_period_days. A more complete description would explain these.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add new information about parameters; it only mentions 'returns and confidence level' which are already in schema. Baseline set to 3.

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 explicitly states it computes parametric VaR and CVaR, and specifies inputs and outputs. It distinguishes itself from sibling risk tools like risk_montecarlo, risk_stress-test by focusing on parametric methods.

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 says 'Use when computing Value-at-Risk and Conditional VaR using parametric methods.' This provides clear context for when to use, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives.

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