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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety coverage is well established. The description adds the specific return subjects (portfolio links, featured fund) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, ordering, or authorization requirements.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that conveys the essential output of the tool without repetition. It is front-loaded with the resource type and adds clarifying parenthetical detail, earning its place with minimal words.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, strong annotations, and an existing output schema), the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does. It could be slightly more explicit about the scope (e.g., 'by slug'), but that is already captured by 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'slug' parameter, including examples and a description of it as an 'Investor slug (URL identifier).' The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the schema itself carries the full semantic weight.

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 identifies the resource (an investor) and the specific payload (portfolio links and featured fund), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_fund and get_stock. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a clear imperative verb like 'Returns' or 'Lists,' relying on the title for the verb.

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?

Usage context is implied: the description indicates this tool provides a single investor's portfolio links and featured fund, so an agent can infer it is for investor-specific lookups. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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