get_portfolio_value

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the valuation basis (latest NAVs), which is the key behavioral trait, and the input shape example. It does not say whether NAVs are live or cached, what happens if a scheme_code is invalid or delisted, or whether the call does any network/IO — meaningful gaps for a data-fetching tool.

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?

Two short sentences plus a concrete example, all front-loaded with no filler. The example is the highest-value content and it is placed immediately after the purpose statement.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single required parameter is illustrated. However, for a portfolio valuation call the description omits error handling for unknown scheme codes and NAV freshness/caching semantics, which an agent would want before invoking it in a multi-step workflow.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema is nearly opaque (array of objects with additionalProperties: true), so the description does real work by giving a concrete holding example with scheme_code and units. It stops short of stating whether extra keys are allowed or how partial/duplicate holdings are treated.

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+resource ('Current value of a mutual fund portfolio') and the valuation basis ('at latest NAVs'), which is enough to separate it from scalar calculators like calculate_lumpsum_value. It never names the closest sibling alternatives explicitly, so an agent still has to infer that this is the multi-holding rollup.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is referenced. The word 'portfolio' hints that this aggregates multiple holdings rather than a single position, but that distinction is left entirely to inference against the many calculate_* siblings.

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