get_fund_portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral detail by disclosing the long-form row-per-component output and BRL denomination, which is not derivable from the schema. It stops short of covering truncation, since max_rows caps at 50,000 and the description never warns that results may be silently capped or how completeness can be detected.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by three tightly scoped bullets that each map to a fund class, plus a single line on output shape — no filler and no restatement of the name. Minor loss: the bullets spend words on dataset internals while the routing decision (the actual call-time concern) is only implicit.

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 four parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the genuinely complex part — heterogeneous payloads per fund class — which an agent cannot infer from structured fields. Missing only edge behavior: what happens for an unmatched fund name, and whether a capped result is distinguishable from a complete one.

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%, so `fund`, `block`, `period`, and `max_rows` are all documented in the schema, and the description adds no format or syntax guidance beyond it. It introduces the `component` concept used in the output but does not tie it to any parameter, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Holdings of any fund') and immediately explains the routing behavior across three fund classes, listing exactly what each dataset returns (CDA portfolio fields, balance-sheet composition, credit portfolio by segment). This is concrete enough that an agent can predict the payload shape and distinguish it from siblings like get_fund_nav or get_fidc_report.

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?

Usage is implied by the routing language — the tool claims to pick the right dataset for whatever fund is passed, which tells the agent it does not need to resolve the fund type first. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of the closely overlapping sibling get_fidc_report, so an agent facing an FIDC still has no stated rule for choosing between them.

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