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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and the description does not contradict that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the core purpose: it does not mention output format, return shape, threshold defaults, or how the three axes are reported. With no output schema, this gap is noticeable.

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 a single, short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It loses slight points because the phrasing is terse and grammatically loose, and it omits any structural cues such as examples or scoping details.

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 tool with no output schema, the description only explains the question being answered, not what the caller receives. It does not mention risk levels, percentages, threshold behavior, or the effect of the optional parameters, so an agent is left without enough context to fully interpret the result.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description does not mention the optional thresholds or topDriversPerSymbol parameters, but the schema already documents them adequately, so no significant added meaning is needed or provided.

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 Polish description 'Ile portfela stoi na jednej spółce, sektorze i rynku' clearly communicates that the tool measures portfolio concentration across a single company, sector, and market. It names the resource and scope, but lacks an explicit verb like 'calculates' or 'returns' and does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling analytics tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_risk_dashboard or get_portfolio_analytics. The description simply states what the tool reports, leaving tool selection entirely to inference.

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