analyze_advanced_risk

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only lists metrics. It doesn't state whether the tool fetches live data, performs calculations locally, or what data requirements exist. No mention of side effects, permissions, or output format.

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?

One concise sentence with specific examples of metrics. Avoids fluff, though it could be slightly longer to include usage context without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite 9-parameter complexity and no output schema, the description offers only a metrics list. It lacks usage context, return value expectations, and guidance on parameter interactions.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds high-level context about the analysis type but doesn't directly enhance parameter semantics 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 an advanced portfolio risk analysis tool with concrete metric names (Sortino, Treynor, downside deviation). It distinguishes from generic tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'analyze_risk_attribution' which may overlap in 'risk decomposition'.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like 'analyze_risk_attribution' or 'optimize_risk_parity'. The description only states capabilities without context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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