get_investment_portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral traits beyond that: the portfolio is active and positions are grouped by institution/type/currency, and excluded positions are explicitly surfaced rather than silently omitted. This helps an agent anticipate the returned composition without contradicting the 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 a single compact sentence with no filler, and the main grouping dimensions are front-loaded. The clause about excluded positions is slightly ambiguous but still adds unique value. It is concise without being empty, though the sentence structure could be clearer for a top score.

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 tool's low complexity, one optional parameter, and existing output schema, the core purpose and excluded-positions behavior are covered. The main gaps are the completely undocumented investment_ids parameter and the lack of guidance for choosing this tool over sibling investment tools. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 0%, and the only parameter, investment_ids, has no property-level description. The tool description does not mention this parameter or explain whether null means 'all portfolios' or something else. Because the description must compensate for the missing schema detail and does not, an agent cannot infer correct argument semantics.

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 identifies a specific resource, the investment portfolio, and its aggregation dimensions: institution, type, and currency. It also adds a distinguishing trait by noting that excluded positions are made explicit. It lacks an explicit verb and does not directly contrast with siblings like list_investments or get_investment, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool should be used when an active portfolio grouped by institution, type, and currency is needed, including visibility into excluded positions. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives among the many sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the right context.

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