analyze_option_portfolio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description reveals no side effects, prerequisites, return format, error behavior, or any other runtime characteristics. The only behavioral hint is 'backward-compatible', which is uninformative about actual behavior.

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 a single sentence, so it is concise, but it does not front-load the most useful information. The first clause 'Backward-compatible option-analysis tool' is vague and adds little, while the more actionable guidance about preferring run_quant_coding_task comes second. It is not verbose, but it is also not effectively structured to maximize agent utility.

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 is simple (two parameters, no output schema), but the description provides almost no context about what the tool does, how to use the prompt parameter, what timeout_seconds affects, or what the return value looks like. An agent would have to guess or inspect other tools to understand this one. This is far below the minimum viable completeness for a tool that is meant to be used.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter (prompt or timeout_seconds). The schema itself provides only names and types, leaving the meaning and expected content of the prompt completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 identifies the tool as an 'option-analysis tool' but does not specify what analysis it performs, what inputs it expects, or what outputs it produces. The term 'backward-compatible' implies legacy status but adds no functional clarity. It is more specific than a tautology, but still too vague to distinguish from other analysis tools without opening the schema.

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 to prefer run_quant_coding_task for general use, which is a clear directive for when this tool should be used (backward compatibility only) and when the sibling is the better choice. It names the alternative directly, giving the agent actionable routing guidance.

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