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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral constraint: analysis/valuation content requires a PRO plan, which tells the agent a call may be gated. It does not mention pagination or response shape, but the PRO disclosure is real added context 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?

Two tightly packed sentences: content list first, plan constraint second. No filler, front-loaded. The content enumeration is dense but each element earns its place.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (the listed sections) and the PRO gate. Nothing critical is missing, though the section list also lives in the schema so there is mild overlap.

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% and the 'include' enum is fully documented in the schema (omission = full response, unknown value = error). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb/resource ('Obraz portfela użytkownika') and enumerates the content it surfaces: positions, cash, watchlist with analyst rating/reason, allocation goals. Clear purpose, but it never distinguishes itself from the many sibling portfolio tools (get_total_portfolio_view, get_portfolio_stats, get_portfolio_analytics), which an agent must choose between.

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?

It gives one usage condition ('Analiza i wycena wymagają PRO') that flags a plan gate, but offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing among the crowded set of sibling portfolio tools. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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