validate_portfolio

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the return format ({valid, errors}), validation scope (structural only, not scoring), and links to schema. It does not explicitly state side effects (none implied) or auth requirements, but the validation nature makes it clear. Slight lack of explicit read-only mention prevents a 5.

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?

Two sentences efficiently cover purpose, usage, return format, and sibling distinction. Front-loaded with the purpose. No wasted 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return format. It covers the single parameter, validation scope, schema link, and usage context. Complete for a simple validation tool.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the portfolio structure (initiatives array, expected fields) and clarifying that validation is structural, not scoring. This goes beyond the schema description.

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 validates a BVF portfolio document against a schema, using specific verbs (check, conforms). It distinguishes from sibling tool score_initiative by explicitly mentioning its use for single initiatives, and lists when to use it (before scoring, storing, sharing).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use (before score/store/share) and when not (for evaluating single initiatives, use score_initiative). It also references the schema, giving clear context for usage.

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