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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what a rollup is, granularity, aggregation semantics, or response shape.

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?

Two sentences that duplicate the same endpoint path verbatim, plus an operation ID — noise rather than information. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing substantive is said.

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?

A GET endpoint with a nested free-form query object, 0% parameter coverage, and no output schema leaves an agent unable to know what to send or what comes back. The single hint to consult describe_operation does not compensate for the total absence of behavioral or parameter detail.

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 0% and the free-form `query` object gives no clue what filters are valid. The description's only contribution is redirecting to describe_operation for native schemas, which is modest value but leaves the parameters essentially undocumented.

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 is effectively a restatement of the tool name and endpoint path ("GET /api/portfolio-rollups/metrics") twice. It never says what the metrics are, what they measure, or how they differ from siblings like get_portfolio_rollups_history or get_portfolio_rollups_snapshots.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the nearby rollup tools (entities, history, snapshots) or portfolio_matrix. The only pointer is that describe_operation exposes native request schemas, which is a schema aid, not usage guidance.

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