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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world surface, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the prerequisite state requirement and names the result components (active share, largest gaps), but since an output schema exists it does not need to describe returns in depth.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the result description is front-loaded and the prerequisite follows. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only analytical tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite state, and result shape. The only omission is any hint about what happens when no strategy is linked or how gaps are ordered.

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?

There is one parameter (account_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never states what it expects beyond the implied 'the account to measure'. The name is self-explanatory and the requirement is unambiguous in context, but the description does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific measurement ('how far an account has drifted from the strategy it tracks') plus the two concrete outputs (active share and largest gaps), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast with adjacent analytical siblings like describe_portfolio_weights or describe_holdings, but the drift-specific framing is distinctive enough to route correctly.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition — 'Link a strategy first with assign_strategy' — and names the sibling tool that satisfies it, which is the key gating condition for this call. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over other portfolio analytics tools, so no exclusions are stated.

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