sector_exposure

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It clearly states the tool returns concentration metrics including HHI and breaks down by multiple dimensions. It does not mention any destructive actions or permissions needed, but since the tool is likely a read-only analysis, the transparency is adequate.

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 sentences, no redundant words. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose; the second adds key output metrics. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description effectively communicates what the tool does and returns. It could mention practical constraints like portfolio size limits or data refresh requirements, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when to invoke it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully describes the positions parameter. The description adds context about the output (sector weights, market cap breakdown, HHI) but does not clarify parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('Break down') and clearly states the resource ('portfolio exposure') and dimensions (GICS sector, market cap, asset class). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying sector-specific analysis and concentration metrics like HHI, which is unique among the listed sibling tools.

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 usage for analyzing portfolio sector composition but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_risk or performance_attribution. No exclusions or contextual notes are given.

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