pws_get_investments

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the portfolio is 'sanitized', the tool requires a specific plugin, and it 'returns unavailable without affecting core PWS tools' when the plugin is missing. This clarifies side effects and failure behavior, enhancing the agent's understanding of the tool's runtime traits.

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 long, front-loaded with the action ('Read'), and every clause adds meaningful information—scope, sanitization, plugin dependency, and fallback behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple getter with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what is read, under what conditions, and what happens if the condition is unmet. The absence of an output schema means return details are not strictly required, and the description's dependency notice fills the main gap.

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 sole parameter providerId is fully described in the schema (coverage 100%), including its enum values and purpose. The description does not add any parameter-specific information, but since the schema already carries the full burden, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 reads the player promotion's sanitized Investments portfolio, with a specific verb ('Read') and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing solely on investments and noting the dependency on a plugin, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: when a compatible Investments Manager plugin is installed and the Investments portfolio is needed. It also notes that when the plugin is absent, the tool returns unavailable, implicitly guiding users to check plugin availability first. No alternatives exist among sibling tools, so explicit comparisons are unnecessary.

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