aureon_run_portfolio_watch_demo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral: it does not say whether the demo mutates real portfolio state or is a sandboxed simulation, whether it is idempotent, how long the multi-stage run takes, or what triggers the 'while-away event'. The pipeline outline is structural, not behavioral.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the parenthetical efficiently encodes the stage sequence. It is tight, though the arrow notation is terse enough that a reader may need the schema to decode 'Automatic objective'.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description ideally would say what the 'return briefing' contains, and no annotations exist to cover the mutation/safety profile. The stage outline is a real aid for a complex multi-step tool, but key unknowns (side effects, return shape, relationship to the get_*_flow sibling) remain unaddressed.

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% for both parameters, so the enum host label and the 'brief' wording default are already fully documented. The description only echoes 'brief' in the pipeline arrow; it adds no format, length, or override semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Run portfolio watch demo') and the parenthetical sketches the pipeline stages (brief → automatic objective → while-away event → return briefing). However, it never distinguishes itself from the read-side sibling aureon_get_portfolio_watch_flow or the other run_*_demo tools, so the agent must infer the execute-vs-describe split from the name alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The word 'demo' hints this is a scenario walkthrough rather than a production path, but the description never says when an agent should pick it over aureon_get_portfolio_watch_flow or aureon_run_full_aureon_loop_demo.

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