portfolio_exposure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that equity sectors/industries are fetched from a market-data provider, failed lookups are recorded under 'provider_errors' and never guessed, ETFs/certificates/bonds use only exported fields, and the leverage-adjusted equivalent view is not a VaR substitute.

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 dense but not bloated: the example clarifies the core concept, the per-asset-class rules are separated cleanly, and the VaR caveat is placed at the end. It is slightly long, but every sentence contributes meaning.

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 description covers nuanced behavioral details and failure semantics, but with no output schema or annotations it does not specify the return structure beyond 'provider_errors' and the 'equivalent' view. The parameter ambiguity also prevents the tool from being fully self-contained.

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%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly hints that 'path' points to a local export/config, but it says nothing about 'base_currency' or the exact expected input format, leaving the parameters largely underspecified.

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 gives a clear, specific account of the resource and behavior: a hidden-exposure theme/driver rollup for a local export/config, with classification logic for stocks versus ETFs/certificates/bonds. The primary verb is implicit ('rollup' is used as a noun), and it does not explicitly name a sibling tool, so it stops just 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?

It implies when the tool is useful: hidden-exposure analysis across unrelated sector labels using a local export. It adds a useful 'never a VaR substitute' warning, but it does not give explicit when-to-use conditions or name an alternative tool to use instead.

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