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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: filters combine with AND, are case-insensitive, and unknown values yield an empty list. It also clarifies tag format and matching. This is strong transparency for a read-only list operation, though it does not mention pagination or sort order.

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, with two sentences that first state the core purpose and filter behavior, then provide tag-specific details. Every sentence adds value, and it is well-structured for quick reading.

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?

For a tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: scope ('portfolio projects'), filter semantics, edge case behavior, and tag format. It is complete enough for agents to use effectively, though it omits details about the returned fields or pagination, which are not critical.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaning for filters overall and specifically elaborates on the 'tag' parameter with format examples and case-insensitivity. However, the 'lens' parameter is not explained beyond its enum values, leaving a partial compensation. The filter behavior applies to both parameters, giving some semantics.

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 function with a specific verb+resource: 'List portfolio projects.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_availability and get_project, which imply different operations (e.g., fetching a single project or checking availability).

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 implies when to use the tool (to list portfolio projects) and describes optional filters and their behavior, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. For example, it does not say 'use get_project for a single project,' so guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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