Get portfolio context

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive/openWorld annotations: it discloses the OAuth scope (read:portfolios), the caller's-own-data restriction, the privacyMode default and its effect on returned figures, and a non-obvious data-quality behavior — unmatched holdings carry no weight/sector/insight so aggregate figures describe only the matched subset, with an instruction to read the coverage banner and never present matched-only numbers as the whole portfolio.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition and dense throughout — nearly every sentence carries either a routing rule or a data-integrity warning. It is a long single block, and the privacyMode/portfolioId restatements duplicate the schema, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden and does so fully: it lists the response sections, flags the matched/unmatched coverage caveat and banner, states auth requirements and the privacy default, and points to the sibling for analytics. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 all three parameters are already documented in structured fields. The description largely restates what the schema says (portfolioId as returned by list_portfolios, privacyMode full vs weights_only) and never mentions `days` or its default/look-back meaning, so it adds little parameter-level meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource — fetch a deep snapshot of ONE portfolio — and enumerates exactly what comes back (summary, holdings with weight/sector/return, Bullrun insights). It also names the two siblings it differs from: list_portfolios as the id source and get_portfolio_analytics for risk math, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrasing ("analyze my portfolio", "how am I invested"), an explicit sequencing prerequisite (pass a portfolioId from list_portfolios, call it first if the user hasn't named a portfolio), and an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative for risk/diversification/correlation/factor questions.

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