Get Portfolio Performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a bit of context about the data returned (returns, benchmarks, comparisons) and the time period, but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what the annotations and simple read operation already imply.

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 but noticeably redundant: the first and second sentences restate nearly the same list of returns, benchmarks, and performance metrics. It is not bloated, but it does not use every sentence efficiently.

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 one optional parameter and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, given a large sibling list with closely related tools, the lack of any selection guidance leaves the context incomplete for an agent deciding between this and get_benchmark_performance or get_portfolio_details.

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 100%, and the single parameter date_range is fully documented with options and a default. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies a get operation on portfolio performance data, listing returns, benchmarks, and performance metrics. It is understandable and distinct in topic, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like get_benchmark_performance or get_portfolio_details.

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 the many related sibling tools such as get_benchmark_performance, get_portfolio_details, or get_portfolio_holdings. It only describes what the tool returns, not the conditions or scenarios that make it the right choice.

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