Бумаги в портфеле

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint: false. The description goes further and discloses a genuinely non-obvious behavior: a broker account may have several portfolios, the portfolio brokerAccountId does not match the account id from invest_accounts(), and an empty response for a specific id is not conclusive evidence that there are no securities. This directly prevents a likely misinterpretation of results.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: it states the returned fields, defines the parameter contract, and warns about the multiple-portfolio edge case. It adds the important 'Учти' caveat without burying the primary usage information.

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?

The tool takes one optional parameter, and the description covers the parameter's source, default behavior, a subtle id mismatch, and a fallback invocation strategy. The tool reports an output schema, so return-value details do not need to be repeated; the description already names the main fields anyway.

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 schema provides no description for broker_account_id, so schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by explaining where the value comes from, what an empty value means, and the key id-mismatch caveat. For a single optional parameter, this is more than sufficient semantic detail.

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 explicitly states what the tool returns — 'тикер, количество, текущая цена, доля и доходность' — so the resource and scope are clear. It does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', and it does not directly contrast with sibling tools such as invest_portfolio or invest_operations, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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 gives clear operational guidance: broker_account_id should come from invest_accounts(), and omitting it means all portfolios. It also gives a concrete recovery instruction — if a specific id returns empty, call without arguments and inspect the available portfolios. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over the nearby invest_portfolio or invest_operations alternatives.

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