get_portfolio_score

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is clearly non-destructive and safe. The description adds value by indicating the output includes a score, level, and multiple indicators, and that it influences suggestion adjustments. No contradictions exist.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary outputs (score and level) followed by secondary outputs and usage purpose. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information about what it returns (score, level, indicators) and why it's useful (adjusting suggestions). It is complete for an agent to understand its purpose and inputs/outputs.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter explanations as there are none. It effectively describes what the tool returns without needing to document inputs.

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 retrieves a comprehensive portfolio score and investor level (novice/steady/advanced/professional) along with multi-dimensional quantitative indicators. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_portfolio, get_portfolio_performance, etc., by focusing on a summary score and user categorization.

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 explains that the tool allows the LLM to understand the user's investment level and adjust suggestion depth and tone, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives, so a slight deduction applies.

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