portfolio_optimizer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it 'returns expected return, risk score, Sharpe ratio', which is consistent but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. The description offers moderate value by specifying outputs but no extra behavioral context.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences in bilingual format. It front-loads the action and outputs with no redundant information. Every word contributes to purpose clarity.

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's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, high schema coverage), the description explains what it does and what it returns. However, it lacks details about the optimization algorithm, interpretation of outputs (e.g., what 'risk score' means), and exact output structure. Overall, adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the overall purpose. No extra semantics are provided for parameters like 'targets' or 'riskTolerance'.

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's purpose: optimizing a real estate portfolio across up to 5 areas and returning expected return, risk score, and Sharpe ratio. The verb 'optimize' and resource 'portfolio' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compare_prefectures' or 'assess_property_risk', leaving potential ambiguity about when to use this tool over others.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or scenarios where it is appropriate. The bilingual note hints at Japanese real estate, but lacks explicit usage instructions.

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