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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description richly discloses behavior: returns a structured warning object instead of throwing, and details the data-integrity zeroing detection with integrity:'suspect_zeroed' flags. This is substantial added context that annotations do not provide, and no contradictions exist.

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 every sentence adds value: purpose, fields, error fallback, data integrity rule, and bulk support. It is well-structured with clear sections and front-loads the core function. Given the complexity, length is justified.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return shape ({ total, results, warning }), row fields, error handling, and integrity flags. However, pagination behavior (page/page_size) and parameter mapping are not covered, leaving some gaps for a complex tool. Still, most operational context is present.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions item_ids for bulk execution and never explains item, page, type, item_id, or page_size. The enum values for type are undocumented. This is a significant gap for a 6-parameter tool, though the bulk note earns a little credit.

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 clearly states the tool returns an investment portfolio for a connection, enumerating specific asset types (FIIs, stocks, ETFs, fixed income, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_investment_transactions and list_accounts. The verb 'returns' and resource 'investment portfolio' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: use for a connection with INVESTMENTS product enabled, and explains fallback behavior when not enabled. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to guide selection among sibling list tools. Missing an explicit 'use this instead of...' keeps it from a 5.

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