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

It discloses the critical side effect that the verification becomes publicly viewable, explains that a public share link may be created or an invite-only share upgraded, and tells the agent to inform the user beforehand. It also mentions the response field 'share_effect' so the agent knows what to expect after calling.

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 and well structured: it states the core action, then the constraints, then the important side effect, then the user-facing instruction, then the response clue. Every sentence contributes necessary information without 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?

The description includes all essential context for a correct call: the maximum portfolio size, the title length limit and clearing behavior, the public visibility consequence, the notification requirement, and the response field to inspect. This is sufficient for the agent to understand the tool's full impact.

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?

Both parameters are described in the schema and the description adds meaningful detail beyond the schema: title is optional, max 80 characters, empty string clears it, and verification_id is a UUID returned by specific tools. This gives the agent enough information to fill the parameters correctly.

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 states a specific action ('Add'), a resource ('account's verifications'), and a destination ('to the portfolio'), with explicit constraints (max 50, optional title max 80). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_portfolio_item or remove_portfolio_item by emphasizing the public visibility side effect.

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 gives clear guidance by warning about the public visibility outcome and instructing the agent to 'Tell the user before calling it.' It does not explicitly compare with alternatives like share_verification, but the usage context is strongly implied and actionable.

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