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

Although annotations already declare a safe read-only operation, the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: consent and entitlement requirements, incomplete valuation behavior, unresolved identity and opaque sleeve limitations, and the fact that no default issuer cap is applied as an investor rule.

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 dense but front-loaded, leading with what is read and immediately following with usage context. Every sentence carries relevant caveats or scope information, though it is longer than strictly necessary for some readers.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers the important caveats an agent needs: denominators and coverage for weights, limitations from missing constituents and unresolved identities, withholding behavior under incomplete valuation, and required consent/entitlement.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter details.

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 a specific verb and resource: reading canonical whole-portfolio exposure dimensions, issuer concentration, and shared fund holdings. It also distinguishes the scope from sibling tools by clarifying that overlap is not historical correlation, which helps separate it from get_portfolio_correlations.

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?

It gives clear usage context: 'Use to explain concentration, diversification and fund overlap.' It also implicitly distinguishes overlap analysis from correlation analysis. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name the sibling holdings/correlations tools as alternatives.

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