carry_panel_preflight

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by specifying that it uses only first-seen, available-at policy rates, counts non-overlapping business-day anchors, and returns 'not_evaluable' rather than fabricating history. This covers data-source integrity, counting methodology, and missing-data behavior, though it does not describe return values on success.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds high-value behavioral detail about data sourcing and fallback behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is complex with nine parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations. The description explains the core preflight intent but is missing crucial context: what a successful evaluation returns, what 'not_evaluable' looks like in practice, how parameters like fixed_regime or minimum_observations affect the check, and how this relates to sibling tools like measure_carry_panel_dependence. The description is too thin for an agent to confidently construct a correct invocation.

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 is responsible for explaining parameter semantics. It does not mention any of the nine parameters by name and does not clarify the meaning of pairs, from, to, fixed_regime, price_evidence, minimum_observations, or horizon_business_days. Some domain hints like 'business-day anchors' relate to horizon_business_days, but overall the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 with a specific verb ('Check whether') and resource ('policy-rate evidence can support a fixed carry panel'). It differentiates itself from sibling preflight tools by focusing on locally first-seen policy rates and the fixed carry panel context, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'before any return study runs' gives explicit timing for when this tool should be used, establishing it as a preflight gate. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool names, but the intended usage context is clear and actionable.

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