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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: a hard cap of three drivers, exactly one attention item surfaced (with a link), and a staleness signal about the underlying evidence — all of which affect how an agent should interpret the response.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, with the scope exclusion last. The middle sentence is a dense enumeration of payload contents that overlaps with the existing output schema, which is the only mild redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the annotations plus the explicit scope boundary cover the rest. The 'Mirrors the Mein Mandat page' reference assumes product familiarity but does convey UI parity, so nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's remark that it 'names no instrument and no valuation' usefully confirms there is nothing to scope by, consistent with the empty input 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?

States a specific verb ('read') and a specific resource ('where the mandate stands'), then enumerates exactly what the reading contains: plan state and severity, up to three drivers, the single attention item with a link, and evidence freshness. It also draws a boundary against sibling tools ('names no instrument and no valuation'), so an agent can separate it from get_portfolio_analysis, get_portfolio_holdings and get_own_record without opening a 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?

The scope statement ('names no instrument and no valuation') plus 'mirrors the Mein Mandat page' tells an agent this is the top-level summary read, not an instrument-level drill-down, which implicitly routes detail requests to the portfolio siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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