validate_portfolio

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveHint, and the description reinforces these by stating 'Pure deterministic validation — no network, auth, or side effects.' This adds explicit behavioral context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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, consisting of two sentences plus a brief list of alternatives and a link. Main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value: purpose, return format, usage guidelines, and behavioral context. No extraneous words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description explains the return format, including the error structure. The input schema is fully documented, annotations cover behavioral traits, and sibling tools are listed. The description also provides a reference to the external schema. This is a complete enough description for the tool's moderate complexity.

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 input schema already provides a detailed description of the 'portfolio' parameter (covering structure and required fields), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation but does not exceed it.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'BVF portfolio document', and specifies conformance to a specific schema. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning alternatives like 'score_initiative' and 'score_portfolio', and the context 'before you score, store, or share it' clarifies when to use.

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 explicitly states when to use ('before you score, store, or share it') and directs to alternative tools for different tasks ('use score_initiative to evaluate a single initiative, or score_portfolio to score them all'). It also notes that the tool is deterministic and has no side effects, guiding appropriate use.

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