portfolio_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions drift and concentration warnings but does not explain what these entail, whether the tool is read-only, or what permissions are needed. Behavioral insights are limited.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key action. However, the phrasing is dense and could be slightly improved with clearer structure or bullet points for readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description fails to detail return values such as the format of drift and concentration warnings. It covers the tool's core purpose and parameters adequately but lacks output specifics, making it incomplete for understanding all facets of tool usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to `attitudeToRisk` by linking it to ATR target (1-7), but does not elaborate on the `holdings` parameter structure beyond the schema. It provides some context but not enough for full parameter understanding.

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 performs portfolio bucketing (equity/bond/cash/alt) and generates drift and concentration warnings relative to an ATR target (1-7). It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on tax and pension estimates.

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 for portfolio analysis, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives among siblings.

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