get_portfolio_breakdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It discloses that the tool returns whatever TEFAS publishes for the selected date, setting accurate expectations about data completeness. However, it does not discuss potential limitations, errors, or authorization requirements, which are minor omissions.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and output. Every part adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 is simple with well-documented parameters and an output schema mentioned. The description covers the nature of the output (asset allocation types). It lacks usage guidelines, but given the output schema and parameter coverage, it is mostly 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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions, defaults, and types. The description adds context about the output but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 returns asset allocation for a TEFAS fund, listing examples of holdings. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_fund_details' (general info) and 'analyze_performance' (performance metrics) by focusing specifically on portfolio breakdown.

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 implies usage when a user needs asset allocation percentages, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_fund_details' for broader fund info) or when not to use it. The context is implied but not elaborated.

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