calculate_futures_hedge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the calculation formula and purpose, which is helpful. However, it does not describe the output format or any prerequisites like required permissions, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 very concise: two sentences and a formula. Every part carries meaning, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words.

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 tool has 4 required parameters and no annotations. The description provides the calculation formula and usage context but omits parameter details and output description. Given the output schema exists, the description is adequate but not 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description only mentions variables in the formula (β, Value, Index, Lot Size) but does not explicitly explain them or their constraints. This provides minimal value beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 calculates the number of index-futures contracts for hedging an equity portfolio. It includes the formula and uses specific terms like 'beta hedging' and 'downside protection', distinguishing it from siblings like calculate_futures_price or calculate_option_payoff.

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 explicitly suggests use cases: 'how do I protect/hedge my portfolio against a market fall', beta hedging, downside protection. It provides clear context for when to use, though it doesn't mention when not to use or alternative tools.

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