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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the holding-existence prerequisite, but does not cover permissions, side effects on balances/holdings, duplicate handling, or auth requirements for a mutation tool.

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 no waste. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the critical prerequisite and then the numeric formatting note.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and prerequisite. It is not exhaustive about side effects or return behavior, but the rich schema handles field-level details.

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 schema already documents every parameter. The description's decimal-string guidance for quantity, price, and fees largely repeats schema details rather than adding new semantic constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (investment transaction), and scope (in a portfolio), with common categories in parentheses. This differentiates it from generic transaction tools and portfolio cash transaction tools without needing to open the schema.

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?

Gives a clear precondition and workflow: the security must already exist as a holding, and the agent should call search_securities to resolve a ticker to a securityId. It does not explicitly name when to use alternative tools such as create_portfolio_cash_transaction, but the context is strong.

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