portfolio_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the critical behavioral constraint that the tool is 'PAID ONLY — no free tier', which is beyond annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 plus a paid note, front-loading the purpose. It is concise with no redundant information, though the second sentence could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains inputs (holdings with specifics), outputs (Sharpe, VaR, drawdown, etc.), and the paid status. It mentions specific stress test scenarios and that it combines multiple analyses, providing sufficient context for use.

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%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds some context by mentioning that holdings need 'values, target weights, and return series', but this aligns with schema descriptions. Minimal added value beyond schema.

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 specifies a 'full portfolio health check' combining risk metrics, correlation, drawdown, rebalance, and stress test. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating it 'replaces 6 individual calls', making the purpose 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?

The description advises using the tool 'when you need a complete portfolio health check' and that it replaces multiple individual calls, implying preference over separate tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list specific alternatives, leaving some gaps.

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