discover_gaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds further behavioral context: 'offline, read-only, propose-only', deterministic results, and specific edge-case behavior (sector-equity handling). 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 fairly long but each sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then covers exceptions and usage details. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is well-structured and informative.

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 that the tool has 2 optional parameters, no required ones, and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description covers all necessary aspects: what is returned (gaps with comparable funds, core funds first, other_shelves), how parameters affect output, and edge cases. Completeness is high.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully explain parameters. It explains `role` by listing the roles implicitly and noting special handling for 'sector-equity'. It explains `flavor` as 'add flavor= to see one shelf's funds'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's enum and default values.

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 defines the tool's purpose: identifying portfolio gaps (roles ≤3% market value) and suggesting comparable funds from a standard shelf. It distinguishes itself by mentioning a sibling tool `screen_candidate` for further detail, and specifies what it does not do (e.g., flag sector-equity as a gap).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use to answer what am I missing / what could I consider adding'. It also provides when-not-to-use guidance (sector-equity not flagged, calling with specific role to see shelf map) and notes that broad funds may already cover the role, giving the agent clear decision context.

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