get_risk_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does state the read-only nature plus the categorical return statuses (OK, CAUTION, WARNING, BREACHED). It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and freshness guarantees, but discloses the essential safety and output-shape traits.

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 [READ-ONLY] tag and the core purpose sentence are front-loaded, which is exactly right. The example-question block is somewhat lengthy but earns its place by supplying usage context the rest of the text lacks.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly describes return content (loss vs cap, percentage used, status). For a two-parameter read-only tool this is largely complete, though it could note the default-today behavior more clearly.

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 both date and account are already documented with format and defaults. The description adds only that account filtering is possible, which is a marginal restatement of what the schema already says; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Check) and resource (real-time risk exposure) and enumerates what it computes: loss vs cap, percentage used, and warning status. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling get_risk_limits, so an agent must infer where the boundary lies.

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?

The example questions give concrete, realistic scenarios for when to reach for this tool (pre-trade exposure check, limit-breach check). It lacks any explicit when-not guidance or named alternative such as get_risk_limits or get_drawdown_stats.

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