Portfolio overview (Omega 10-K)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds context about the data source (latest 10-K for FY2025) and a limitation (only two operators from the concentration note), which is useful behavioral information beyond the annotation. It does not contradict the annotation.

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: the first defines the tool and its contents, the second routes the agent to a sibling for a different need. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no fluff. 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?

Given that this tool has no parameters, has an output schema available, and is a simple read-only overview, the description provides all necessary context: what data it returns, the source, the limitation on operators, and an alternative for the ranked list. Nothing important is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds context about the tool's source and scope, but there are no parameters to explain. The schema is empty with 100% coverage, so no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 what the tool does: provides Omega's portfolio overview from the latest 10-K with specific components (property type, facility mix, geographic concentration, and operators). It explicitly differentiates from operator_concentration by noting this overview names only two operators, so an agent can immediately tell them apart.

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 explicitly names the alternative operator_concentration and the condition that selects it: when a ranked list of operators is needed. It clearly states that this overview only includes the two operators disclosed in the filing, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus its sibling.

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