ポートフォリオ最適化

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, consistent with the description's output focus. The description adds that it returns expected return, risk, Sharpe ratio, but does not elaborate on behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences in both English and Japanese, front-loaded with the core purpose and key outputs. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool has a complex input schema (5 params) and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and return values. It lacks mention of optimization goals or risk tolerance options, but these are in the schema. Near complete for selection purposes.

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 coverage is 80%, and the input schema already describes parameters with decent detail (e.g., enum options, descriptions). The description only adds that the tool handles up to 5 areas, which is already in schema via maxItems. Minimal added value.

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?

Description clearly states the tool optimizes a real estate investment portfolio across up to 5 areas and returns specific metrics (expected return, risk score, Sharpe ratio). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scenario_what_if or assess_property_risk, which have different purposes.

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 implicitly states the tool is for optimizing portfolios, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., scenario_what_if for scenario analysis). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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