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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that this is an informational snapshot ('current holdings... total value... P&L summary'), implying read-only usage, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, how current the data is, or any auth/data-source caveats.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists concrete metrics. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 zero-input tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states exactly what data will be returned and in what categories, and nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers everything, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that no input is needed by specifying the output dimensions an agent can expect.

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 identifies the resource as the Wave Trader portfolio and lists the exact contents: current holdings (OWB, MOLT, USDC), total value, layer allocations, and P&L summary. This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_prices or wave_signal, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists'.

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 content makes the use case obvious—querying the user's current portfolio overview—and helps differentiate it from price, news, or signal tools. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives.

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