risk_drawdown

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the computation from historical peak and output structure, but does not mention if the equity array must be sorted or chronological, nor any edge cases or limitations.

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?

Description is one sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and outputs. It is front-loaded with the term and definition. Could be slightly more structured but is appropriately sized.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (magnitude, peak, trough, indices). It is mostly complete for a simple risk calculation tool, though it could clarify data ordering or missing data handling.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what the tool computes from the equity parameter and what return fields to expect, beyond just the parameter type.

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?

Description clearly states it computes the maximum drawdown percentage from historical peak of an equity curve, and lists the return values (drawdown magnitude, peak, trough, indices). It uses specific verbs and resources, and is distinct from sibling risk indicators like risk_sharpe and risk_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?

Description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. The context of sibling tools implies it is for maximum drawdown analysis, but no when/not guidance is provided.

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