get_asset_profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds some behavioral context by stating the output is per holding and listing the exact classification dimensions, but it does not disclose additional traits such as data freshness, potential performance implications, or permission requirements beyond the basic read-only nature.

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 immediately states the action and resource, followed by a concise list of the specific output fields. There is no redundant information or filler; every word 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 only one required parameter (fully described in schema), an output schema is present (so return values need no separate explanation), and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The description fully explains what the tool does, making it complete for the agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100% (the portfolio_id parameter is documented as 'The portfolio UUID'), and the tool description adds no further meaning to the parameter. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already adequately describes the only parameter.

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 ('asset classification for a portfolio') while enumerating the distinct fields returned (sector, industry, country, exchange, asset type per holding). This makes it clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_portfolio_value or get_portfolio_analytics.

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 usage when classification details per holding are needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It is a simple definition without contextual placement among siblings.

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