portfolio_risk_adjusted_analysis

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

Without annotations, the description describes the analysis outputs but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization requirements, or side effects. The disclaimer is legal, not behavioral. The tool appears to be a read operation, but this is not explicit.

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 with sections for overview, outputs, and portfolio integration. It is not overly verbose, though the disclaimer could be considered extraneous for agent consumption.

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 description covers the tool's function and outputs adequately, but does not address prerequisites (e.g., requiring portfolio data for integration) or limitations. Given the output schema exists, return values are not needed, but completeness is moderate.

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%, so each parameter already has a description. The description adds context about 'risk_level' adjusting analysis from conservative to aggressive, and implies portfolio parameters relate to existing holdings, providing moderate additional meaning 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 performs risk-adjusted analysis with position sizing and lists specific outputs like stop loss and risk/reward ratios. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'risk_adjusted_analysis' tool, which may lead to confusion.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions portfolio integration, implying usage when the user already owns the stock, but does not state when not to use it or provide comparative context.

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