calculate_portfolio_allocation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Calculate portfolio allocation percentages' but doesn't explain the output structure, edge cases (e.g., empty holdings, zero total value), rounding behavior, or whether it returns a sorted list. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 wasted words. It is efficient and front-loaded with the key action. However, it may be too terse, lacking additional helpful context, though this is still appropriately sized for a simple utility.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns and how the calculation is presented. It doesn't mention return format, total percentage, or any special behavior. The description is incomplete for a tool that computes and presumably returns results.

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 schema has 100% coverage with a description for the holdings parameter ('Array of holdings with USD values') and nested properties. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The tool's name and description imply the calculation logic, but parameter semantics are sufficiently covered by the schema.

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 the tool calculates portfolio allocation percentages, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like portfolio_get_summary or portfolio_get_performance, which could also involve allocation calculations. The name adds specificity, but the description alone doesn't differentiate.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, expected input format beyond the schema, or scenarios where this is the appropriate choice over other portfolio tools. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage.

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