get_bottom_fisher_portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only states it 'gets' a portfolio. It does not mention read-only nature, potential authentication needs, data freshness, or any side effects, providing minimal 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 very concise (10 words) but lacks necessary detail for a tool with many siblings. While the sentence is efficient, it sacrifices completeness and clarity, earning a middling score.

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 tool has no parameters or output schema and multiple sibling tools, the description should explain the portfolio's nature and when to use it. It only names the portfolio and its theme, leaving the agent without enough context to decide.

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?

Since the tool has zero parameters, the baseline score is 4 per instructions. The description correctly implies no input is needed, and the schema confirms this, so no additional parameter semantics are required.

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 states 'Get the Bottom Fisher Portfolio - Undervalued stocks with high upside potential', which clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a specific portfolio and gives its investment theme. However, it does not differentiate from sibling portfolio tools like get_rfp_portfolio or get_rsp_portfolio, limiting distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or comparison with other portfolio tools, leaving the agent without decision context.

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