zuckerbot_portfolio_performance

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. The description implies a read operation ('Fetch live...') but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or mention any side effects. It also lacks details on authorization, rate limits, or data freshness. The mention of 'live' indicates real-time data, but overall transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 two sentences: the first states the action and return contents, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple input (one required string) and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of return values (enriched tier rows, daily metrics, etc.). However, it does not address error conditions (e.g., portfolio not found, not launched) or prerequisites. This is a minor gap considering the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100% (one parameter: portfolio_id). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's 'Audience portfolio ID' – it does not explain format, validation, or how to obtain it. With high coverage, the baseline is 3, and there is no extra semantic value.

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 specifies the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'Meta performance and downstream CAPI attribution for a launched audience portfolio.' It enumerates specific return items (enriched tier rows, ad breakdowns, daily metrics, CPA comparisons, autonomous evaluation outputs). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_portfolio (which likely fetches basic portfolio data) and rebalance_portfolio (which executes rebalancing).

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to monitor a running portfolio and decide whether to rebalance.' This guides the agent to invoke it for monitoring and decision-making before rebalancing. It does not provide exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools.

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