get_portfolio_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description must handle full behavioral context. It mentions 'aggregated' and 'across all connected brokers', suggesting data is combined, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires existing broker connections, or whether the summary is real-time vs delayed. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 a single concise phrase that conveys the essential scope ('across all connected brokers') without any filler. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the summary contains (e.g., total value, asset allocation, per-broker breakdown). The current wording is too vague for an agent to know what response to expect or how to interpret the result, making the tool under-specified for practical 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the description has no need to explain parameter meaning. The schema coverage is effectively 100% (vacuously), and the description does not add unnecessary detail. Consequently, this dimension is at the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 'Aggregated portfolio summary across all connected brokers' clearly indicates a read operation that returns a consolidated view of the user's total portfolio, distinguishing it from more specific sibling tools like get_holdings or get_positions. The lack of an explicit verb is compensated by the tool name starting with 'get'.

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 implies this tool is for obtaining a high-level overview across all brokers, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_holdings or get_mutual_funds. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer for detailed breakdowns.

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