finance_investment_portfolio_backtest

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is not a read-only call. The description adds routing/scope context (JWT, tenant, company) but does not clarify what destructive effects the action may have or what side effects to expect.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear opening line, a routing note, and a short argument list. It wastes little space, though it could have used the space to add more semantic detail.

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 description is not complete enough for reliable selection and invocation. It lacks when-to-use reasoning, what a valid `message` or `inputs` should look like, and what the action actually does beyond its name. The large sibling list and destructive annotation raise the need for more context.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does state that `message` is a free-text objective and that `inputs` is an optional JSON string, which is minimally useful, but it does not describe what keys or structures `inputs` should contain.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it runs the finance domain agent action `investment_portfolio_backtest`. The action name itself conveys the purpose—backtesting an investment portfolio—and the description clearly ties the tool to that action, though it does not explain the action in plain terms or differentiate it from sibling finance_investment_* tools.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many finance-related sibling tools. It only says the action routes through the domain-agent dispatcher, which is an implementation detail, not a usage criterion.

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