get_portfolio_yield

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals what outputs are produced (yield on current value and invested capital, plus CAGR) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it mention any data access or permission requirements. For a 'get' tool this is somewhat implied, but the description could be more explicit, especially since annotations are absent.

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 two sentences: the first states the core functionality and output, the second gives a concrete use-case trigger. It front-loads the verb and resource, is free of fluff, and every phrase adds value.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description's mention of 'yield per year (on current value and on invested capital) plus the dividend CAGR' is essential and sufficient for an agent to understand the return shape. It also clearly distinguishes this tool from dividend-history or performance tools. The description could momentarily mention that cagrYears and calculationType affect the returned metrics, but the schema covers those.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (accountIds, cagrYears, calculationType). The description adds context about yield calculation basis but does not add extra meaning for the parameters themselves. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameters, and the description's marginal addition is limited.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('portfolio's dividend yield per year') plus additional detail ('on current value and on invested capital') and the dividend CAGR. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dividend_history (which fetches dividend events) and get_portfolio_performance (which covers broader performance metrics).

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 provides a use case: "Use this for 'what's my dividend yield?'." This gives clear context for when to invoke this tool, although it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives. It could be stronger with exclusion criteria, but the use-case phrasing is helpful.

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