get_agnifolio_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It describes the tool's subject matter but does not disclose what happens when called (e.g., returns documentation, requires no side effects, output format). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentence that efficiently lists three key aspects of the tool's content. It is appropriately short and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more structured with separators.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides a reasonable high-level overview. However, it does not specify the form of the information returned (e.g., text, structured data) or depth of content, leaving some uncertainty for an AI agent.

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, and the schema already reflects this with 100% coverage. No parameter semantics are needed, and the description appropriately says nothing about parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 provides information about Agni Folio, the public server's capabilities, and OAuth connection guidance. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on specific financial calculations, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns'.

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 tool is for users wanting to understand the platform and how to connect an AI to a portfolio. It does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or any exclusions, but the context ('public server', 'hosted OAuth') suggests an overview role.

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