analyze_drawdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that deals can be fetched live if omitted, but does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, destructive behavior, or output details. The statement 'basic' hints at simplicity but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded with the core function. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the main computation and data source but misses details on date range effects, the meaning of 'include_curve', and expected return values.

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 description adds meaning to the 'deals' parameter by noting live fetching behavior, but provides no information about other parameters (date_to, date_from, include_curve, starting_balance) which are undocumented in the schema (0% coverage). This leaves four parameters unexplained.

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 clearly states the tool computes 'basic peak-to-trough drawdown' from history deals, with the option to fetch live data if 'deals' is omitted. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_trade_history or calculate_profit.

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 implies when to use it (for drawdown calculation) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or context is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool's name and siblings.

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