get_portfolio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get,' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't mention any side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or what the return payload contains. For a tool that likely queries investment data, this is minimal transparency beyond the verb itself.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core function without waste. It contains no redundant or repetitive information, making it appropriately concise for a simple 'get' operation.

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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and parameters with zero documentation, the description is too thin to be complete. It doesn't clarify what 'holdings and performance' includes, how the date range is applied, or what the response structure looks like. The tool likely needs more contextual explanation to be fully usable by an 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain the meaning or purpose of the start_date and end_date parameters. The description doesn't mention date ranges or how they affect the result. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the description needed to compensate but did not, leaving parameters entirely unexplained.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('investment portfolio holdings and performance'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_accounts or get_net_worth. It precisely conveys the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling 'get' tools (e.g., get_net_worth, get_account_balance), there's no context or exclusion criteria explaining when a user should prefer get_portfolio. This absence makes it hard for an agent to select the right tool.

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