Risk Tolerance

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe and deterministic. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it is element-based and gives allocations. It does not explain what 'allocation buckets' entail, the output format, or any limitations.

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 very brief: a single line describing purpose, a group tag, and an example. It is front-loaded but could be more informative about output without being overly verbose. The conciseness earns a 4, as every part earns its place.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the output looks like (e.g., a risk level, percentages, recommendations). The agent has to guess the return format. Additionally, no guidance on when to use this among many sibling financial tools is provided.

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 covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only shows an example request with typical values. With high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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 it computes 'element-based risk tolerance' and suggests 'allocation buckets', which is a specific verb-resource pairing. It distinguishes itself from sibling financial tools like financial_market_timing or financial_investor_archetype by focusing on risk tolerance using astrological elements. The title matches the purpose.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only includes a group tag 'Financial Astrology' and an example request, but no when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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