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

Annotations already indicate read-only/idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavior: it returns { total:0, results:[], warning } instead of throwing, performs cross-checks for mass zeroing, and flags suspect_zeroed rows with instructions to treat them as unavailable. This goes well beyond the annotations and provides crucial guidance.

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 well-structured: a concise opening statement of purpose, a detailed data-integrity section, and a note on bulk support. It is longer than average but the complexity of the tool warrants the detail; no fluff.

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 a complex tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields, error handling, and data-integrity warnings comprehensively. It omits pagination/filter behavior details, but overall it is complete enough for correct use.

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 must explain parameters. It only mentions item_ids for bulk execution; other parameters (item, page, type, item_id, page_size) are left undefined or only inferable from context, which is insufficient.

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 the investment portfolio for a connection, enumerating asset types (FIIs, stocks, ETFs, etc.) and fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like openfinance_list_investment_transactions and openfinance_get_account_balance.

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 says it applies to connections with the INVESTMENTS product enabled and explains the fallback when that product isn't available. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this instead of X', but the scope is clear enough for most use cases.

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