sc_analytics

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the content of results is stated, but the description does not disclose how the optional portfolio_id behaves (e.g., what null means), whether any rate limits or auth requirements exist, or any limitations of the analytics data.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists concrete facets of the result. No wasted words or redundant restatements.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The tool is simple with one optional parameter, but the missing parameter semantics and lack of differentiation from sc_overview leave an agent with enough ambiguity that the definition is merely adequate, not complete.

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 never mentions portfolio_id or its meaning. The parameter name is self-explanatory, and there is only one optional parameter, but the description fails to clarify what a null value or omitted parameter resolves to, leaving the agent to guess.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Scalable Capital portfolio analytics') and enumerates precise deliverables: allocation breakdowns, sector/region exposure, and performance attribution. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sc_holdings and sc_overview.

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 when to use the tool: whenever portfolio-level analytics are needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from sc_overview, which could also plausibly provide portfolio-level data.

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