run_strategy_comparison

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does tell the agent that the tool runs backtesting, walk-forward analysis, and Monte Carlo validation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potentially important traits such as heavy computation time, dependence on market data, network access, or the nature of the returned results.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key analysis components. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

This is a complex tool with 7 parameters and no output schema. The description gives a high-level summary but does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a report, metrics, plots) or any side effects. For a tool performing potentially time-consuming simulations, the lack of output guidance and resource expectations leaves the agent under-informed.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither helps nor hurts.

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 specifies a clear verb ('comparison') and resource ('multiple portfolio strategies'), and names the three concrete analysis components (backtesting, walk-forward analysis, Monte Carlo validation). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_backtesting_analysis or run_monte_carlo_simulation, which are single-component tools.

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 word 'comprehensive' implies this tool is used when a full multi-method comparison is desired, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this instead of the separate sibling tools (e.g., run_backtesting_analysis, run_walk_forward_test, run_monte_carlo_robustness_test). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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