sensitivity_analysis

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the iterative process, ranking, and return types (including license failure). However, it doesn't mention side effects, performance implications, or the 'Pro tier' licensing details beyond a hint.

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 well-structured with separate sections for behavior, usage, args, and returns. It is concise yet informative, with no unnecessary fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 actuarial complexity and presence of output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return values (including error case). It is fairly complete, though could add more on prerequisites or limitations.

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 0%, but the description includes an Args section explaining each parameter with context (e.g., triangle 'as in compute_chain_ladder', excluded 'honours existing exclusions'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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's action: dropping each link ratio, rerunning chain ladder, and ranking impact on IBNR. It provides specific verb and resource, with context about 'Pro tier' and use after mack_diagnostics, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use after mack_diagnostics flags outliers — these are the cells to investigate first.' This gives clear when-to-use context, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the implied order.

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