get_risk_assessment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only mentions 'live' and 'beta,' but fails to state whether the operation is read-only, what data sources are used, or how the risk profile is computed. This leaves significant unknowns for an agent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the core action and scope, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description alone should explain what the risk profile contains. It only mentions beta, leaving other potential metrics unspecified. The tool appears simple, but the description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand what will be returned.

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 100%, and the parameter 'ticker' is already described as 'The stock ticker symbol.' The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond calling the target a 'company,' which does not materially enhance understanding of the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Assess') and resource ('live risk profile of a company') and further specifies a key output ('including beta'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stock_price or calculate_financial_ratios, which focus on different data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'live' implies real-time context, but there is no explicit statement about suitability, prerequisites, or exclusion of other tools such as calculate_financial_ratios or run_dcf_valuation.

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