get_portfolio_fact_sheet

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the full set of return fields, the default benchmark behavior, the ability to override, and performance/cost characteristics. It sets clear expectations about what the tool does and its limitations without contradicting 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 well-structured with a front-loaded summary, a bulleted list of return fields, and a short usage paragraph. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting makes it easy to scan.

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 description is complete for a read-only, well-schema'd tool. It covers purpose, usage triggers, output structure, default behavior, and performance. An output schema exists, so not explaining return values in prose is fine.

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%, with both parameters fully described. The description reinforces the benchmark override but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the burden.

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: 'One-call printable portfolio summary' with a specific list of returned metrics. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the single-call, summary nature, and the usage phrase 'a one-pager', 'portfolio summary' gives a concrete use case.

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 says 'Use this when the user asks for...' with clear examples, and provides context like 'Single call, ~1-2s, free' to guide when to choose this tool over potentially heavier alternatives. It doesn't name alternatives, but the guidance is specific and actionable.

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