investor_analyze_portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'analyze', implying a read operation, but does not confirm side effects, required permissions, or output nature. No details about aggregation, reporting, or data fidelity.

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, concise sentence. While it avoids verbosity, it is so terse that it sacrifices needed detail. It is appropriately sized for its minimalism but lacks structure to aid scanning.

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's complexity (analysis of allocation, concentration, goal deviation) and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how results are presented (e.g., metrics, visualization, text), nor does it clarify the role of optional parameters.

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 has three parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description adds no information about them. It does not explain the meaning of 'account_ids', 'as_of', or 'include_goal_comparison', leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names.

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 the tool analyzes allocation, concentration, and goal deviation, which are specific aspects of a portfolio. The verb 'analyze' and the named aspects provide reasonable purpose clarity, though it could be more precise about the output type.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus siblings like 'investor_get_portfolio' or 'investor_explain_portfolio_change', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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