test_flow_risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral constraints, such as being restricted to futures/equities and requiring specific data sources. It doesn't contradict annotations and further clarifies the tool's read-only nature (risk analytics). However, it doesn't discuss limits or side effects, though none seem relevant for a read-only tool.

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 well-structured and every sentence adds value: purpose, metrics, required inputs, alternative for options, and a comparison tip. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids fluff, despite being moderately long due to the metric list.

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 the tool's complexity (many metrics), presence of an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is highly complete. It covers scope, input origins, exclusions (options), and a practical usage scenario. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it appropriately.

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 coverage is 100%; both parameters have descriptions that already explain their source. The description repeats this requirement but adds no new parameter-level semantics. It does list the computed metrics, which gives context for the tool's output but doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 function: 'Run portfolio risk analytics on Flow-generated paths' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly restricts scope to 'FUTURES/EQUITIES ONLY — no options' and enumerates the precise metrics computed, distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_derivatives.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: requires portfolio_id and flow_job_id from generate_flow_paths or simulate_flow_scenario. It also gives a clear alternative: 'If the user has OPTIONS positions, use analyze_derivatives instead'. The tip about calling on multiple flow_job_ids adds practical usage context.

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