capm_expected_return

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('calculate'), with no information about permissions, rate limits, side effects, output format, or error handling. For a calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple calculation tool and front-loads the key information ('Calculate expected return').

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 3 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It names the tool's function but lacks details on behavior, parameters, and output, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 parameters 'riskFreeRate', 'beta', and 'marketReturn' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond naming the CAPM model, which implies these parameters but doesn't explain their meaning, units, or valid ranges. It partially compensates but leaves significant gaps.

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 'Calculate expected return using CAPM model' states the verb ('calculate') and resource ('expected return'), but is vague about scope and specifics. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'calculate_wacc' or 'calculate_irr' which are also financial calculation tools. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for financial calculations (e.g., 'calculate_wacc', 'calculate_irr', 'analytics_scenario_comparison'), the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to other tools.

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