analyzePeriodicReturns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'analyze' suggests a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns specific data formats, or involves computational costs. It mentions 'configured account' but doesn't clarify what configuration entails or potential errors.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential action and scope.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and output information. The schema provides good parameter documentation, but the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations or output details, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. It mentions 'daily and monthly returns' which loosely relates to the 'interval' parameter, but provides no new details. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze daily and monthly returns for a configured account'. It specifies the action ('analyze'), the subject ('returns'), and the scope ('for a configured account'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'analyzeTradingPerformance' or 'analyzeConsecutiveProfitLoss', which appear related to similar financial analysis domains.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'analyzeTradingPerformance' or 'calculateWinRate', nor does it specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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