sc_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral context. It adds useful information by stating that data is live and comes directly from the broker, and 'Get' implies a read operation. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, caching behavior, or how optional parameters affect the behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler: it front-loads the resource and core fields, then adds a useful behavioral note about live data. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has low complexity and an output schema, so the description does not need to document return values. However, it is incomplete regarding parameter behavior and portfolio selection, and it offers no hints about when this overview is the right choice among sibling tools. It is adequate for a basic read, but still has clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for the two undocumented parameters, but it does not explain include_ytd or portfolio_id. The schema titles are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds no meaning beyond them, leaving agents to guess how these options shape the request or response.

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 fetches a Scalable Capital broker portfolio overview and names its key contents: total value, cash, and performance. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like sc_holdings or sc_analytics, but the word 'overview' and listed fields make the aggregate-level purpose reasonably clear.

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 given for when to prefer this tool over siblings such as sc_holdings, sc_transactions, or sc_analytics. The description implies it is for high-level portfolio summaries, but it never states exclusions or alternatives, leaving selection to inference.

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