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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context by clarifying the output is 'readings, not a grade' and that no overall score is returned, which is not implied by the annotations. It also suggests the tool returns figures, adding transparency without contradicting structured data.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose, provide examples of axes, and explicitly state the absence of an overall score. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition. The structure is tight and easy to scan.

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 complexity (nested holdings object, optional base, output schema present), the description is sufficiently complete. It clarifies the analytical nature and the output format (figures, no score). While it does not enumerate all possible axes, it says 'and others,' and the output schema covers return details. The description is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected behavior.

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 100%, so both base and holdings are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of how holdings are interpreted or how base affects output. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra credit is earned.

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 reads the portfolio along separate axes (risk composition, crisis performance, and others) and returns figures. It explicitly notes that no overall score is returned, distinguishing it from a grading tool. However, it does not name a specific sibling tool or explicitly contrast with them, so it lacks the full differentiation that would merit a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like measure_portfolio, portfolio_report, or past_crises. The description only describes what the tool does without stating when it is the preferred choice or when to avoid it. This leaves the agent without clear routing information.

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