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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses zero-LLM-cost behavior, the underlying API path, resolution priority, and a stale-data caveat about strategy.name/condition.name after GA mutation. This is substantial transparency beyond the schema.

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 dense sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, cost/API equivalence, resolution order, ID discovery, and verification guidance. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It names what the response includes, flags stale fields to avoid, and tells the agent how to obtain the required portfolio_id. No critical calling information is missing.

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 100%, so the parameter is already fully documented. The description adds context about using fetch_portfolios to discover IDs, but that mostly reinforces what the schema already states. Thus the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one portfolio' with explicit contents (full strategy objects, positions, spread-grouped holdings). It clearly differentiates from the sibling fetch_portfolios by emphasizing singular retrieval, making its unique role obvious.

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 explicitly directs agents to use fetch_portfolios for ID discovery and gives a precise verification use case: use conditionFieldAudit for Gate-7/Gate-8 verification, not strategy.name or condition.name. It also explains resolution order, giving clear context on when and how the tool behaves.

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