Explain Sizing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safe read-only profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a step-by-step mirror of the live engine, covers specific sizing rules, and reports house floors plus any deviation when per-fund overrides are supplied. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, followed by a compact enumeration of the sizing components and the output behavior. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 read-only explanatory tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description provides enough context about the calculation components and updated behavior. It omits guidance on output shape, but that is handled by the output schema. The only meaningful gap is usage guidance versus siblings, which is captured in dimension 2.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add per-parameter detail beyond the schema, but it does connect parameters like atr_14, overnight_gap, and weekend_approaching to the algorithm narrative. It adds no new format, unit, or threshold information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies what the tool does: it mirrors the live C# risk engine sizing step-by-step and reports house floors and deviations. It names specific components (ATR sizing, position-notional cap, overnight-gap halving, weekend gross headroom), which makes the purpose concrete. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the resource and behavior are distinct enough that an agent can infer its role.

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 given about when to use this tool versus siblings like warden.cost_check, validate_order, audit_features, validate_genome, or promotion_verdict. The description implies it is for explaining sizing calculations, but it does not state that explicitly, nor does it list exclusions or alternatives.

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