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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds real context beyond them: result cap ('Up to 10 results') and the fact that results carry past-year returns, risk and yield. It stops short of describing pagination or result-completeness behavior, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the use case, then the filter-selection rule, then the exclusions, so the most important content comes first. The single dense sentence packs in nested parentheticals and quoted examples, making it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 needn't explain return shapes, and it covers when to use, when not to, result caps and filter strategy for a 10-parameter tool. Minor gap: the numeric threshold parameters and default ordering are not given any semantic framing.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates by explaining the crucial filter-selection rule: use the figure filters when a metric expresses the intent, and reserve nameIncludes for themes no figure captures like 'AI'. It doesn't clarify sortBy, minSharpe or the min* thresholds, leaving several undocumented params to be inferred from their names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search public/community and Redstone model portfolios) with concrete example queries, and clearly separates it from get_portfolio ('Not for the user's own brokerage account') and the metric tools by naming the returned dimensions (past-year returns, risk, yield). An agent can pick it over its siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit trigger ('when the user wants to see real portfolios to learn from or copy'), concrete utterance examples, an explicit exclusion zone (own brokerage account, recommending a portfolio to buy), and routing guidance on choosing figure filters vs nameIncludes. Nothing is left to inference.

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