inspect_asset_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility of explaining behavior. It clearly discloses that no path simulation occurs, describes the diagnostic nature of the tool, and enumerates the returned JSON contents. It does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention failure/edge-case behavior, but 'Inspect' and 'WITHOUT simulating paths' strongly imply a non-destructive diagnostic operation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose and key limitation first, usage guidance second, exclusions and alternative third, return value summary fourth, and parameters last. Every sentence adds useful information; the example questions support correct invocation without being redundant.

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?

For a single-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema present, the description covers all necessary invocation context: what the tool does, what it does not do, when to use it, what it returns, and the parameter format. Nothing an agent needs to decide between this and the sibling tool is missing.

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?

The input schema provides only a title for 'ticker', so the description fully compensates by defining it as a 'Yahoo Finance ticker symbol' with concrete examples ('SPY, AAPL'). This resolves exactly what format the parameter should take, covering the entire gap left by the 0% schema description coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Inspect') and a precise resource ('EGARCH + skewed-t model fit for a ticker'), and immediately differentiates itself from the Monte Carlo sibling by saying 'WITHOUT simulating paths.' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from forecast_asset_monte_carlo.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('validate data quality or model sanity before (or instead of) a full Monte Carlo forecast'), gives concrete example questions, and states clearly what NOT to use it for, naming the alternative tool for those cases. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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