get_portfolio

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already disclosed. The description adds the return content (assets, weights, feature sets) but does not provide further behavioral context such as pagination, error handling, or permissions. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise: two sentences that clearly state the tool's purpose and the parameter source. No unnecessary words or redundancy; information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers the key contextual need: what the tool returns and where to find the ID. It does not elaborate on edge cases or distinguish among many sibling tools, but given the output schema and annotation, the description is largely complete. A bit more differentiation would push it to 5.

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 portfolio_id as 'The portfolio UUID' (100% coverage). The description adds semantic value by indicating the ID comes from list_portfolios and that it refers to a 'specific portfolio', helping the agent understand the parameter's provenance and scope beyond the schema's minimal description.

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's function: retrieving detailed information about a specific portfolio, mentioning the included content (assets, weights, feature sets). It distinguishes from list_portfolios by targeting a single portfolio, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_portfolio_value or get_portfolio_analytics, which may overlap in purpose.

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 a specific portfolio's details are needed and provides a prerequisite ('Use the portfolio ID from list_portfolios'). However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over alternative portfolio-related tools (e.g., get_portfolio_value, get_portfolio_fact_sheet) and does not state exclusions.

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