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

Annotations state readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation, and the description's 'uploading' wording matches that. However, the description does not disclose whether the snapshot replaces existing data, whether validation failures are surfaced, or what side effects the submission has on historical snapshots.

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, grammatically simple sentence with no filler or repetition. It is not bloated, though its brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral and usage 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 an 8-parameter mutating tool with nested holdings and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient. It does not explain what a successful submission returns, how the snapshot interacts with existing portfolio data, or what validation occurs. The rich schema covers parameter meaning, but not call-level behavior.

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 description adds only general context (external broker, account state) and no parameter-level meaning. The input schema already documents 75% of parameters in detail, including cashByCurrency and totalEquityPLN, so the description does not need to carry the full parameter burden, but it also does not add value 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 uses a specific action ('Wgranie' – uploading) and a specific resource ('stan rachunku' – account state) from an external broker, so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like submit_broker_transactions or set_cash_balance, but the 'account state' wording does separate it from transaction-level imports.

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?

No when-to-use or alternative guidance is present. The description only states what the tool does; it does not say to prefer this over submit_broker_transactions for full snapshots, nor does it explain how this relates to set_cash_balance or modify_holdings.

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