get_portfolio_details

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, such as mentioning it returns a dictionary. It does not disclose any performance implications, data freshness, or permission requirements.

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 four sentences long with some redundancy. The first sentence is clear, but the second sentence ('Retrieves a complete overview...') largely repeats the first. The 'Returns:' section also restates what was already mentioned. It could be tightened to two sentences without loss of clarity.

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 an output schema exists, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It specifies that the result includes accounts, positions, and summary. However, it does not clarify what 'summary' entails, and there is some ambiguity about whether it overlaps with other portfolio endpoints. Still, it is sufficient for basic understanding.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides all necessary information. With 0 parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description does not add parameter meaning because there are none to describe.

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 that the tool retrieves comprehensive portfolio details including accounts, positions, and summary. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_accounts, get_portfolio_holdings, and get_portfolio_performance, which could cause confusion about when to use this combined endpoint versus individual ones.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, use cases, or exclusions. An agent would have no context to decide between get_portfolio_details and the numerous other get_* tools.

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