benchmark

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the core behavior and dataset options but does not disclose potential failure modes, whether it is read-only, or any network/access requirements. This is adequate but not rich.

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 first sentence front-loads the main action, and the dataset list is compact. The rhetorical question adds useful context, though it could be trimmed. Overall, the description is concise and well-structured.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, the description omits the role of 'run_id' and does not clarify the relationship with sibling tools like 'backtest'. It gives enough to guess but not full operational 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 coverage is 0%. The description lists valid dataset values, but it never mentions the 'run_id' parameter, its purpose, or how it maps to the schema. It partially compensates for the dataset parameter but ignores the required one.

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 states the verb 'Score' and the resource 'a backtest against the published Fama-French factors', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'backtest' (runs backtests) and 'discover'. The added question about discovering vs rebuilding a factor further clarifies the tool's unique role.

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?

It provides clear context: use this tool to evaluate a backtest against Fama-French factors, and it lists the available datasets. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'status' or 'events'.

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