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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context about cross-account aggregation and currency conversion, but does not disclose anything about response shape, size limits, or fallback behavior, which would add further transparency.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It is somewhat front-loaded but reads as a definition fragment rather than a complete imperative statement, which costs a point.

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 simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose. However, it does not describe what the returned view contains, how topN affects results, or how this differs from the many sibling portfolio tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description's mention of conversion to one currency loosely reinforces baseCurrency, but it adds no meaningful detail about topN or parameter behavior beyond the schema.

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 communicates the resource: a portfolio aggregated from all brokerage accounts and converted to one currency. This is enough to distinguish it from history or analytics siblings, though it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+object statement.

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 about when to choose this tool over related siblings like get_portfolio_analytics, get_portfolio_stats, or get_portfolio_value_history. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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