calibrate_swaption_vol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses validation against the vendored spec, forwarding, and that summary selects the calibration block, but omits auth requirements, side effects, persistence, idempotency, and error behavior.

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 four dense sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. Each clause adds invocation or body-construction value, including the endpoint and example reference.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a complex nested POST with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is only partially complete: it omits request_id semantics, auth, and side-effect/error details, though example references help an agent proceed.

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 must compensate, and it does by naming key body fields (pricing with SwaptionSabrCalibrateSpec, vol_id, discounting_curve_id, forwarding_curve_id) and pointing to sabrcal_* examples. The request_id parameter remains undocumented, preventing a 5.

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?

Specific verb 'Calibrate' and resource 'SABR swaption cube' with endpoint POST /calibrate-swaption-vol make the action clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling calibrate_swaption_model or clarify cube-versus-model calibration scope.

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 when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance is provided. The only routing help is 'see the vol examples (sabrcal_*) for complete bodies', which aids invocation but does not explain when this tool should be chosen over sibling calibration or pricing tools.

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