RiskModels linked brokerage positions

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

Annotations already cover read-only/destructive, but the description adds substantive behavior: empty book when nothing is linked, sync timing ('as of the portal's last brokerage sync'), free/no REST charge, and that it does not place orders. These are useful traits beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the usage routing ahead of behavioral detail, which is the right ordering. The middle is dense but each clause (three book shapes, empty-book behavior) carries information not available elsewhere, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining return values and does so fully: fields (ticker, quantity, market value, weight), has_shorts, and the three re-shaped book variants. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'No inputs,' which closes any ambiguity about required arguments.

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?

States a specific verb (returns) and resource (caller's linked brokerage positions), and explicitly distinguishes itself from riskmodels_analyze_portfolio and riskmodels_portfolio_exposure for conversation-typed books. The scope 'default riskmodels.net portfolio' is unambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('request concerns the caller's own linked brokerage book') and when-not ('Not for a book typed into the conversation'), naming the two alternative tools to route to. Nothing is left to inference.

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