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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral details: graceful error handling for disabled products (403), and a sophisticated data integrity warning mechanism for mass zeroing, including how to treat suspect balances. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 relatively long but well-organized, with a clear front-loading of purpose and a separate paragraph for data integrity. Every part adds value, though it could be slightly more 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 the tool's complexity (portfolio with many fields, error handling, data integrity) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides comprehensive context. It explains return structure, error behavior, and a detailed edge case handling, leaving few unanswered questions.

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?

With 6 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates by explaining item_ids for batched execution. It does not describe item, page, type, or page_size, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance on how to use these fields.

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 investment portfolio data for a connection, listing specific asset types (FIIs, stocks, ETFs, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like openfinance_list_investment_transactions by focusing on the full portfolio.

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 portfolio retrieval and mentions error handling (returns empty instead of throwing). It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like openfinance_list_investment_transactions, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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