Get Investments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the data grouping; it does not mention any side effects, auth requirements, or pagination, but those are less critical given the read-only annotations and output schema.

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 short and front-loaded, but the first and second sentences are largely redundant ('showing cash flows and contributions' is restated). It could be tightened to a single sentence without losing information.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with two optional and well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description is functionally adequate. The main missing element is usage differentiation from closely related portfolio/historical reporting tools.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema with default values and allowed options, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description only reiterates 'grouped by time period' and adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a clear verb and resource ('Get investment data') and specifies it is grouped by time period with cash flows and contributions. It is strong enough to distinguish from most siblings like get_watchlist or get_orders, though it does not explicitly differentiate from get_portfolio_performance or get_historical_data.

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 the intended use for retrieving investment activity grouped by time period, but it never states when to choose this over sibling tools such as get_portfolio_performance or get_dividends. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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