最大回撤

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

The read-only/open-world annotations already cover safety, and the description adds value by explaining that closing prices are used as the net-value series, results are negative numbers, peak positions are returned, and larger windows approach historical extremes. No contradictions 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 succinct sentences, no redundancy; the first sentence states the operation, the second gives actionable guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema for return details, and the description gives the key use recommendation. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could strengthen explicit routing away from account-performance tools.

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%, so the description matters. It communicates the recommended interval limit 1d×365 and connects 'window' to limit, but it does not directly explain symbol or interval beyond the schema enum. It partially compensates for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: fetching K-line data and calculating the asset's maximum drawdown and peak-trough positions. It also explicitly notes that this is not account performance, which distinguishes it from analysis_sharpe and analysis_var.

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?

It provides clear practical context for how to choose the window: 'larger windows approach historical extremes; suggest starting at 1d×365'. It does not name alternatives, but the 'non account performance' note acts as a when-not-to-use signal.

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