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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing beyond restating that fact. It doesn't say what happens when the ID doesn't exist or belongs to another record type, nor what a portfolio record contains.

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 short sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and zero waste. It is terse to the point of being near-tautological with the title, but nothing in it is 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with a fully described schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, this is nearly enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is that no output schema exists, so the description could have sketched the returned portfolio fields or the not-found behavior, and it doesn't.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the string-encoded 64-bit ID rationale. The description adds only "by ID", so the baseline 3 applies with no extra semantic value.

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 and resource ("Get one Propertyware portfolio") and adds the lookup key ("by ID"). Combined with the sibling list_portfolios, the singular/ID-based framing implicitly distinguishes it from the plural list variant, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 phrase "by ID" implies you must already have the numeric ID, which suggests using propertyware_list_portfolios first when you don't, but this routing is left to inference. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative is stated.

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