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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds significant detail: return structure, error handling (returns total:0 instead of throwing), and crucially, data integrity warnings with cross-referencing and suspect_zeroed flag. This goes well beyond the annotations, providing deep behavioral context.

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 lengthy and detailed, with two dense paragraphs plus a bulk note. It is front-loaded with purpose but could be more concise. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'balance' and 'amount'). Acceptable for complexity but not optimally concise.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return fields and edge cases (mass zeroing) well. However, it does not cover pagination (page, page_size) or describe all parameters. Adequate for basic use but incomplete for full understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'item_ids' for bulk support. Parameters like item, page, type, item_id, page_size are not described. Minimal added value beyond the schema.

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 it returns an investment portfolio for a connection, listing specific asset types (FIIs, stocks, etc.). The verb "Returns" and resource are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like openfinance_list_investment_transactions, though the purpose is distinct enough.

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 implies usage for retrieving portfolio data but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs list_investment_transactions). It mentions error handling for when INVESTMENTS is not enabled, but no exclusions or best practices.

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