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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return payload shape (title, description, public image links) and, importantly, the empty-list semantics: an empty result means the store has not registered a portfolio.

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 compact sentences: what it returns first, when to use it second, edge case last. Every sentence carries information, though the consumer-facing instruction ('Mostre ao consumidor') is slightly advisory rather than strictly tool-definition content.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and the empty-state meaning, and the annotations handle the safety profile. A brief note on ordering or volume of portfolio items would make it fully complete, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 100% and the single storeId parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from get_offers or get_promotions. The description adds no further parameter guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (the store's portfolio of completed work) and enumerates the item types and fields returned (title, description, images as public links). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_offers, get_quote, or search_products without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use context — show the consumer before requesting a quote (request_quote) or committing to custom work — and names the sibling tool that follows it. It does not state explicit when-not conditions, but the trigger condition is clear.

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