assess_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the analytical basis ('asset allocation and concentration') but does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format is, or any limitations such as requiring complete holdings. This leaves the agent under-informed about invocation 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It states the verb, object, and basis efficiently, which is appropriate for a tool with a single well-documented parameter.

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 schema is complete for the single parameter, but there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and behavior. It does not describe what the 'risk profile' output looks like or address the overlap with sibling tools, making it minimally adequate rather than fully complete.

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?

The schema fully describes the 'holdings' parameter and its sub-fields with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the concepts of 'asset allocation and concentration' as the analytical lens, but it does not explain how the input maps to these measures or provide further parameter-level detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Evaluate') and identifies a clear resource ('risk profile of an investment portfolio') with the basis of evaluation ('asset allocation and concentration'). It is clear and specific, but it does not differentiate from the sibling 'analyze_portfolio', which could overlap in purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_portfolio' or 'simulate_investment'. The use case is only implied by the verb and inputs, with no exclusions or alternative references.

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