Agent: generate report

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, implying potential side effects. However, the description only says 'generates ... as a recommendation' without clarifying whether the report is stored, sent, or just computed. This lack of detail fails to disclose the actual behavioral impact beyond the annotation.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. No extraneous content, but it could include more detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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 absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description should at least hint at the return format or content. It does not, leaving the agent without enough context to anticipate the tool's output or behavior.

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 no extra parameter semantics beyond the minimal schema descriptions ('portfolioId — FK to Portfolio' and 'reportType'). It does not explain valid report types or portfolio ID formats.

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 the tool generates a portfolio-level performance/risk report, using a specific verb ('generates') and resource ('report'). It distinguishes from siblings like agent_propose_rebalance or agent_execute_preapproved_order by focusing on report generation rather than trades or risk scoring.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agent_propose_rebalance or agent_recompute_risk_score. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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