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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial semantic context beyond them: the -100 to +100 scale with 0 as universe average, the screener-specific definition of Quality, the warning that positive valuation means expensive, and the fact that tilts cover only the equity portion with `coverage` reporting its share. It also pre-empts a likely confusion by disambiguating "risk tilt" from the portfolio risk level.

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?

Dense but purposeful: each sentence contributes a distinct rule (scale meaning, Quality definition, equity-only scope, risk-tilt disambiguation). Front-loaded with outputs, though the fragmentary opening line and the mid-paragraph definition of Quality make it slightly less scannable than it could be.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden — and it does, naming the tilt axes, dividend yield, P/E, and the `coverage` field. For a read-only two-parameter summary tool, an agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, the `holdings` parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema while `portfolio_id` is bare, and the description adds nothing for either. The baseline of 3 applies — the schema does most of the work, but the description misses an opportunity to clarify the `portfolio_id` vs `holdings` choice.

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 opening line names the resource (a strategy/portfolio) and the outputs (factor tilts, dividend yield, P/E of its stocks), and later explicitly separates the risk tilt from describe_portfolio_risk's 0-10 risk level. It's clear what the tool returns, though the framing is a noun phrase rather than an action verb, and it doesn't explicitly contrast with describe_portfolio_weights or describe_holdings (the latter only appears in the schema).

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?

"Use it to check that a build expresses the tilt it was asked for, or what a catalogue strategy leans toward" gives concrete use cases, and the risk-tilt clarification tells the agent when to prefer describe_portfolio_risk instead. No reciprocal exclusions are stated for holdings/weights tools, but the guidance is actionable.

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