get_portfolio_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool gets an item by ID, with no mention of return format, error handling, rate limits, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's basic function.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 getter with one well-documented parameter, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain what a portfolio item contains or what the response looks like, and it omits error behavior. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps in expected output.

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 fully describes the 'id' parameter (type number, description 'The ID of the portfolio item to retrieve'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing beyond 'by ID', which does not enhance the parameter's meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 'Get a specific portfolio item by ID' with a specific verb and resource, and the 'by ID' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_portfolio, which implies finding items without an ID. This is precise and unambiguous.

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 you have a known portfolio item ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_portfolio. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools, so the guidance is left to inference.

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