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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses consent requirements, that data comes from saved dated snapshots, and that no broker synchronization or imports occur. It also mentions pagination via nextCursor for list/history pages, though it does not explain failure behavior when consent is missing.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by constraints and pagination guidance. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's high-level scope, safety constraints, and snapshot-based behavior. However, with seven parameters and low schema description coverage, an agent still lacks enough parameter semantics to invoke all action modes confidently, even though no output schema 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 only 14%, and the description explains almost none of the seven parameters. It mentions pagination for list/history pages, but does not clarify action modes, source_id, analysis_id, limit, offset, or how cursor differs from nextCursor.

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 uses specific verbs (list, read) and concrete resources (portfolios, holdings, balances, performance, analysis history), making the tool's scope clear. It also distinguishes itself from an analysis-generation sibling by stating that it never generates a narrative.

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 gives clear usage context: requires portfolio consent, uses saved dated snapshots, and explicitly excludes synchronization, imports, order placement, and narrative generation. It does not name the best alternative for narrative or analysis generation, but the exclusions are strong guidance.

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