show_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the behavioral distinction between with/without ticker, and warns about the tool's limitation for projections. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but covers the key behavioral traits for correct usage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds contextual warnings. It is slightly long but every sentence contributes meaning, maintaining a good structure for quick scanning.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers parameter effects, currency, and the critical caveat about projection questions, while also referencing complementary tools. It lacks return format details but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic difference between ticker present/absent, and mentions the default and effect of display_currency, going beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 queries portfolio snapshot history, with a specific distinction between aggregate (without ticker) and per-holding (with ticker) data. This specificity and contrast with the sibling tool set effectively communicates the tool's purpose.

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 advises when not to rely solely on this tool, especially for forward-looking questions, and names specific alternatives (get_market_brief, risk_summary). This provides exceptional guidance on when to use and when to avoid.

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