adaptation_vs_mitigation_summary

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

Description discloses the output structure (counts and metric total + share per bucket) but does not mention any behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. With no annotations provided, the description partially compensates but lacks safety context.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences that efficiently convey the tool's action and output. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 simple parameter count (1 optional) and existence of an output schema, the description covers the main functionality and return fields. However, it does not explain the metric parameter's role or provide context compared to sibling tools, leaving some gaps.

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 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description does not elaborate on the 'metric' parameter, its possible values, or how it affects results. This leaves agents guessing despite the parameter being optional with a default.

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?

Description clearly states the tool buckets funds by adaptation vs mitigation categories and returns counts and metric totals. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like fund_type_distribution or portfolio_summary, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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 on when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives like fund_summary or sector_summary. The description only implies usage for adaptation/mitigation classification without exclusions or context.

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