get_portfolio_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only overview by using 'Get' and listing the returned data categories, but it does not mention details like whether P&L is absolute or percentage-based, the reporting period, currency, or potential performance implications of fetching all holdings.

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, front-loaded sentence. The main action and resource appear first, followed by a compact colon-delimited list of what the summary contains. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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-input read tool without an output schema, the description adequately names the principal return categories. It is missing minor but useful context such as currency, P&L period, and whether allocation is by asset class or individual holding, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the schema already shows. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('portfolio summary'), then enumerates the key contents: total value, P&L, allocation, and all holdings. This distinguishes it from related siblings like get_asset_price_history, list_assets, and list_investment_transactions, which focus on narrower or different data.

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 when to use the tool: whenever a portfolio-level overview is needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over related investment siblings, such as get_asset_price_history or list_assets, or what scenarios would favor those alternatives.

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