wealth_advisory_wealth_portfolio_drift

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call is scoped to the caller's JWT, tenant, and company, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose what side effects or changes the action may trigger.

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 short and structured with an Args section, making it easy to scan. The routing sentence and parameter definitions are useful, though the opening sentence is largely redundant with the tool name.

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?

Even with the output schema and annotations covering return values and safety, the description fails to explain the core semantics of the action: what wealth portfolio drift is, when to invoke it, and what message/inputs should contain. An agent cannot confidently select or call this tool based on the current text.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add minimal meaning: message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'optional JSON string of structured inputs.' But it lacks any specifics about what should go into those fields for this particular action.

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 only restates the tool name: 'Run the wealth_advisory domain agent action `wealth_portfolio_drift`.' It never explains what portfolio drift analysis does, what it computes, or what outcome the agent should expect. The routing/scoping sentence adds context but not purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many wealth_advisory siblings such as wealth_advisory_wealth_tax_loss_harvest or wealth_advisory_chat. No alternatives, exclusions, or conditions are mentioned.

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