get_portfolio

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

The annotations already declare this a safe read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: it returns all positions and groups them by instrument type. It does not disclose potential output shape, pagination, or whether positions reflect current market values, but for a simple read tool with strong annotations this is adequate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys what is returned and how it is organized. No filler or repetition; appropriate for a zero-parameter read tool.

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 zero-parameter, read-only portfolio listing tool, the description is sufficient: it states scope ('all positions'), context ('securities account'), and output organization ('grouped by instrument type'). A more complete description might clarify what fields are included per position, but the tool is simple and annotations cover safety semantics.

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 there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. With 100% schema coverage and an empty properties object, there is nothing more to explain.

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 identifies the resource ('positions of the securities account') and the key grouping ('by instrument type'), making it distinguishable from siblings like get_cash and get_orders. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'retrieve' or 'list,' so it stops just short of a perfect 5.

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 instead of nearby alternatives like get_available_size, get_transactions, or get_cash. The name and description imply 'get all positions,' but no explicit context or exclusion criteria is provided.

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