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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description doesn't contradict them. It adds the key behavior of scope selection (household vs portfolio) and the metric types returned. It doesn't detail return structure, but output schema exists, so that's acceptable.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loads the core purpose. The dependent clause about metrics is efficient, and the usage guidance is integrated naturally without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke correctly: it states what it returns (risk metrics), how to scope it (portfolio vs household), and the optionality of portfolio_id. The sibling list is extensive, but the description distinguishes it via the risk metric focus.

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 0%, but the description explains the role of portfolio_id in the context of scope selection. It clarifies that portfolio_id is optional and omitting it gives household-wide results, adding meaning beyond the schema's minimal definitions. However, household_id semantics are not addressed, but that may be obvious.

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 retrieves risk metrics for either a household or a portfolio, and specifies the metrics (volatility, VaR, concentration, drawdown). The phrase 'household-wide dashboard' distinguishes it from portfolio-level queries, and the list of metrics is specific and actionable.

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 explicitly tells to omit portfolio_id for household-wide risk, which is a clear usage directive. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings like get_net_worth or get_drift_snapshot, though the scope is clear.

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