Get Benchmark Performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema, such as how filters interact, what happens with missing benchmark data, or any calculation nuances.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and does not waste words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 output schema and full parameter descriptions cover the invocation details, and annotations cover safety. However, the description lacks usage differentiation and does not address the many optional filtering parameters or default date_range behavior, leaving the agent with some ambiguity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description references 'benchmark symbol' and 'specific date', which map to symbol and start_date, but it does not add any meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 a specific action ('Compare portfolio performance') and a specific resource ('benchmark symbol starting from a specific date'). It is distinct enough from sibling tools like get_portfolio_performance and get_benchmarks, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_portfolio_performance or get_benchmarks. The description implies a benchmark comparison use case, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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