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 workspace scoping and the search capability, but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior or ordering; with annotations handling the main safety context, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It immediately conveys the resource, the workspace scope, and the optional search behavior without filler.

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?

Full schema coverage documents all parameters, an output schema defines the return shape, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile. The description supplies the remaining context—workspace scope and search intent—leaving nothing critical missing for correct selection and 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%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's 'by name or slug' is redundant with the query parameter's schema description and adds no new parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (List) and resource (portfolios), scopes it to a workspace, and mentions an optional name/slug search. This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like get_portfolio (single portfolio detail) and list_portfolio_transactions (a different resource).

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 context for when to use this tool: when you need to list portfolios in a workspace, with optional search. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, such as directing agents to get_portfolio for a single portfolio lookup, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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