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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true; the description adds genuinely new context beyond them — slot consumption on first-transaction portfolio creation, plan-limit enforcement, and the hard exclusion of broker-synced portfolios. It stops short of describing failure behavior (e.g., what happens when a plan limit is hit) or how operation_id deduplication surfaces to the caller.

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 tightly packed sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by constraints in descending order of importance. No filler, no restatement of the title, and every clause carries operational information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The definition covers the mutation's side effects well, but for an 8-parameter write tool with zero schema descriptions, the undocumented operation_id and exchange parameters leave a real gap.

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 carries the full burden, and it only indirectly illuminates type (BUY/SELL), transaction_date (historical vs current), and portfolio_name (new portfolio created via first transaction). It says nothing about operation_id, an idempotency UUID that matters greatly given idempotentHint=true, nor about exchange, quantity/price bounds, or ticker format.

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 (record), resource (manual BUY or SELL in the user's ValuEdge portfolio), and a key scope distinction: 'without placing an actual trade.' An agent can immediately tell this apart from edit_my_portfolio_transaction or remove_my_portfolio_transaction, which operate on existing records.

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?

Provides clear exclusions rather than an explicit when-to-use list: never write to broker-synced portfolios, enforce current plan limits, and note that a first transaction creates a new portfolio and consumes a slot. It does not explicitly route the agent to edit_my_portfolio_transaction for corrections, but the negative constraints are strong and actionable.

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