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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the scoping condition of portfolio concentration and indicates the output is proposals, which is mild behavioral context. It does not describe ranking behavior, defaults, or interaction with underlying scoring, but the annotation lowers the burden and there is no contradiction.

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 sentence with no redundancy and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately terse for a simple read-only recommendation tool, though it is so brief that it borders on under-specification rather than elegant conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description never explains what the response contains—whether it returns ranked tickers, sectors, rationale, or a structured list. All parameters are optional, so default behavior and portfolio data source are only partially inferable from parameter descriptions. For a tool that produces recommendations, an agent needs more context about the output shape and selection logic.

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 covers all 4 parameters with meaningful descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond saying 'diversification proposals.' Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 a purpose: proposing diversification where the portfolio is concentrated. It uses a specific verb ('Propozycje') and resource ('dywersyfikacji'), which distinguishes it from pure analysis tools like get_concentration_risk, though it does not explicitly name a sibling. The phrasing 'tam, gdzie portfel jest skupiony' adds a useful scoping condition, though it is somewhat concise.

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 implies the tool should be used when a portfolio is concentrated, which is a legitimate usage condition. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from related tools like find_opportunities, get_concentration_risk, or recommend_position_size. An agent must infer the appropriate choice from the name and context rather than being told.

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