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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: the response should surface evidence and limitations and must not issue investment advice, which is real output-shaping context an agent would not infer from annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the activation condition front-loaded before the advisory constraint. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. The remaining gap is the undocumented portfolio_name parameter and the absence of any statement about default scope or behavior when the named portfolio doesn't exist.

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 single optional parameter portfolio_name has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned anywhere in the description. An agent cannot tell whether omitting it means 'the default portfolio' or 'all portfolios', nor how to use it to disambiguate when a user holds multiple portfolios.

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 names a specific verb-and-resource pair (analyze the authenticated user's portfolio) and enumerates the exact analytical dimensions returned: concentration, sector/currency allocation, fair-value coverage, and risk context. That makes it clearly distinct from retrieval siblings like get_my_portfolio or market-wide tools like screen_stocks, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It gives an explicit activation trigger — 'when the authenticated user asks for their own portfolio concentration...' — which is a concrete use context, and adds a guardrail against producing buy/sell/hold recommendations. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the alternative tool when the user wants the other user's portfolio or raw holdings.

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