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

Annotations already mark this as a safe, non-destructive read, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: an access-tier gate (Professional and above), an interactive sign-in side effect when the user isn't authenticated, and the important caveat that the composite is an analytical aggregate rather than an ACI Risk Indicator. It also discloses that custody/regulatory/stress fields are null for mixed-module portfolios, which materially shapes how the agent should interpret results.

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?

Five tight sentences with no filler: purpose and input bounds first, then return contents, then the analytical caveat, then access/auth. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description responsibly enumerates the return contents and warns about null module-specific fields. Combined with access requirements, the sign-in side effect, and the scope of the composite, an agent has everything needed to call and correctly interpret this tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretation the schema lacks: that the weight is a capital weighting driving the composite, and the aggregate size window of 2–20 positions. The constraint of ~1.0 normalization is echoed from the schema, so the added value is real but modest.

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+resource ("Assess the composite risk of an allocation of 2–20 providers") and immediately scopes it to a portfolio rather than a single provider, which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like get_risk_score and compare_providers. It also names the concrete outputs (composite_score, per-provider breakdown, concentration) so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces.

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 gives clear preconditions for use: an allocation of 2–20 providers with weights summing to ~1.0, Professional plan access, and a sign-in flow if unauthenticated. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives such as get_risk_score or compare_providers, so the agent must infer the routing, but the context is otherwise unambiguous.

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