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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical context: graceful error handling (returns structured response instead of throwing), a detailed data integrity checking mechanism with warnings and suspect flags, and instructions on how to treat zero balances. This goes well beyond 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 detailed but front-loaded with the core purpose. It has structured sections for data fields, error handling, and data integrity. Some redundancy exists (e.g., listing asset types again), but overall it's appropriately sized for a complex tool.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides a good overview of return structure (total, results, warning) and specific fields. It covers edge cases like data integrity warnings and mass zeroing, making it nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage in description. The description only mentions 'item_ids' for bulk operations and lists types via 'type' enum but does not explain other parameters like 'item', 'page', 'page_size', or 'item_id'. Since schema coverage is absent, the description fails to compensate for these parameters.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: returning investment portfolio data for a connection. It lists specific asset types and response fields, and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'openfinance_list_investment_transactions' which focuses on transactions.

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 specifies the use case (connections with INVESTMENTS enabled) and highlights error handling. It mentions bulk support. However, it does not explicitly guide when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings, though the context makes it clear.

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