get_efficient_frontier

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint, which is minimal. The description goes beyond by disclosing long-only constraints, the composition of each frontier point, and the historical vs. forward-looking distinction. This adds meaningful behavioral context, though edge cases (e.g., handling of missing data) are not covered.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, output composition, and usage alternative. No redundant or vague wording.

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 the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values, but it still mentions key output elements. It covers what the tool does, constraints, and alternatives, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already describes all parameters with clear definitions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds general context about historical returns and long-only constraints but does not elaborate on individual parameter usage or formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 calculates the mean-variance efficient frontier for portfolio assets using historical returns. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it is historical analysis and pointing to optimize_portfolio for forward-looking scenarios.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use: historical analysis. Explicitly names the alternative for forward-looking optimization: optimize_portfolio with simulation data. Also mentions the long-only constraint as a boundary condition for use.

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