stress_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context by specifying return units (-0.10 = -10%) and giving an example input. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether invalid factor names cause errors, or any other side effects or limitations.

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 plus an example, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the units clarification prevents misinterpretation, the example shows the exact input shape, and the get_model_info pointer gives a necessary prerequisite. No fluff.

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 no output schema, nested objects, and zero schema description coverage, so the description must be more complete. It gives a good example for factor_shocks but omits the meaning of weights and horizon, and never describes the result structure or behavior when inputs are invalid. An agent would likely need to inspect other sources or make unsafe assumptions.

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 must compensate for all parameters. It explains factor_shocks reasonably through the example and return units, but it leaves 'weights' and 'horizon' completely unexplained. Weights is required and its mapping semantics are not described at all.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Estimate portfolio P&L under factor shocks.' It is specific enough to separate this from generic risk tools, but it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like get_portfolio_risk or get_factor_exposures.

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 implies its use case through the phrase 'under factor shocks' and provides a concrete example, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It does instruct the agent to 'Use get_model_info for valid factor names,' which is a useful prerequisite but not a when-not-to-use guideline.

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