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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond those annotations by explaining the output format: each figure is numbered F1, F2..., linked to its method and window, and accompanied by a receipt. This helps the agent know what to expect from the response.

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 terse sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives one essential operational instruction about quoting numbered figures, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

With a rich schema, an output schema, and clear safety annotations, the description covers the key non-schema information: the report is written, figures are numbered, and figures should be quoted by number. It could add explicit selection guidance relative to sibling tools, but that gap is already captured in the usage dimension.

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%, and the schema already gives detailed semantics for both holdings and base currency. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool as the engine's written report on the portfolio, with numbered figures tied to the method and window that produced them. This makes the core purpose clear and broadly distinguishes it from numeric or structural sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives. The final instruction to quote figures by number is useful after invocation but does not help an agent select this tool in context.

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