zuckerbot_get_portfolio

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

Without annotations, the description implies a read-only operation by stating 'Fetch' and listing return data. It does not explicitly state non-destructive nature but is sufficient for a read tool.

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 concise sentences: first defines purpose and return data, second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded and 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?

Explains return fields (tiers, budgets, CPA targets, performance) and usage scenario. Lacks specification on portfolio status constraints but is adequate for a simple read tool with no output schema.

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 single parameter 'portfolio_id' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds 'by ID' and usage context but no additional semantic details beyond the schema.

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 fetches configuration and performance data for a portfolio by ID. It identifies the resource (audience portfolio) and action (fetch), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling portfolio tools like update_portfolio or rebalance_portfolio.

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?

Provides clear context: use for planning, monitoring, or rebalancing an already-active portfolio. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools for similar purposes.

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