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 methodological context (co-movement analysis, recent-years window) without contradicting annotations, enhancing transparency beyond the structured fields.

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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the primary output. It is efficient but slightly packed; a minor split into two sentences could improve readability without adding length.

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 output schema and annotations, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns and its input needs. It does not specify edge cases like how 'recent years' is defined, but that is acceptable given the structured fields cover the essentials.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (holdings and base). The description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already documents, so it sits at the baseline 3.

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 states precisely what the tool computes: the number of independent bets derived from co-movement, each holding's share of risk versus money, and the same metrics over recent years. It explicitly differentiates from ticker count and names the core outputs, making it distinct from sibling tools like measure_portfolio or portfolio_report.

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?

The description implies usage for portfolio risk analysis but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no comparison to siblings, leaving the agent to infer context from the purpose alone.

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