analyze_diversification

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral aspects: returns specific outputs, auto-fetches data for known tickers, and requires a payment. No contradictory or missing critical disclosures.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. Key information (HHI analysis, outputs) is front-loaded, followed by payment detail. Efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the main outputs and payment. It lacks details on interpreting results (e.g., grade meanings) but is adequate for a well-named tool with high schema coverage.

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 high (83%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value with the payment note and auto-fetch hint but does not elaborate on each parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 states it performs portfolio diversification analysis using HHI, listing specific outputs like concentration grade, effective number of assets, and breakdowns. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., analyze_risk, analyze_correlation) by focusing on diversification.

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 usage for diversification analysis but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling tools cover other aspects, but no direct guidance is given.

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