analyze_risk_attribution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it fetches external market data (though use_market_data parameter implies this), or what the return format is. The verb 'decompose' hints at analysis but lacks explicit safety or side-effect information.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the tool's primary purpose. It is reasonably concise, though the phrase 'Portfolio risk attribution analysis' is slightly redundant with the tool name and could be streamlined.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the analysis returns, any assumptions, or data requirements. This is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior without additional context.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal value by mentioning market, sector, and specific risks, which aligns with the attribution_factors parameter, but it doesn't explain parameter behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 decomposes portfolio risk by market, sector, and specific factors, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like stress_test_scenarios or optimize_risk_parity by focusing on attribution, but it could be more explicit about the output or analysis type.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many sibling risk and portfolio analysis tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or intended use cases are mentioned.

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