Get portfolio snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that amounts are in AUD and lists output fields, but does not reveal additional behavioral traits like rate limits or idempotency. This meets the baseline for a read-only tool with 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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then content details, then use case. Structurally ideal for quick scanning.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value (fund summary, allocations, holdings). It covers key use cases and output contents, though it does not mention pagination or limits (likely not needed).

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 covers fund_id with 100% description. The description adds value by suggesting how to discover fund_id via 'whoami or list_funds', providing practical guidance beyond the schema.

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 it provides a 'Full portfolio snapshot' including fund summary, asset allocation, and active holdings. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_holdings or get_holding_analysis by emphasizing this is a single comprehensive call for a top-level view.

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 answers when to use it: 'to answer 'how is the fund doing?' or 'what do we hold?'. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the context implies this is the best high-level entry point among many granular sibling tools.

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