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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that this is a 'what-if' analysis showing how signals shift, which aligns with read-only behavior. It does not disclose additional behaviors like latency or external dependencies, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 four sentences and each contributes: a label, core functionality, the full scenario list, and a use-case note. The scenario list is somewhat redundant with the schema enum but serves as a quick reference. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 what, how, and when to use the tool, and the input/output schemas are rich enough to handle remaining details. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. The mutual exclusivity of scenario vs. stressorOverrides is implied by 'or' and the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the scenario list and the 'or' relationship between scenario and stressorOverrides, but it largely repeats the schema's own descriptions. It adds minimal new meaning beyond interpreting symbols as 'any subset of commodities.'

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 identifies the tool as 'What-if climate scenario analysis' and specifies that it applies named scenarios or custom stressor multipliers to commodity subsets. It distinguishes itself from siblings like forecast.portfolio_stress by focusing on commodities and climate scenarios rather than portfolio-level stress.

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 gives a clear use case: 'stress-test a commodity thesis before committing to a position.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., forecast.portfolio_stress) or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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