list_portfolios

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'live data' and details the return fields, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, comment on authentication, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not rich; the lack of side-effect disclosure is probably fine, but the absence of any caveats about live data or potential limitations leaves a moderate gap.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the return details. It contains no filler, is immediately understandable, and uses the available space optimally.

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 that there are no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does an adequate job of contextualizing the tool. It tells the agent what data to expect in the response (including specific fields) and where the data comes from. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the output shape (e.g., whether owners are an array or a flat list) and about any limits or pagination. For a simple list tool, it is reasonably complete, just missing those minor details.

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 tool has zero parameters, so all parameter semantics are trivially handled by the empty input schema. The description does not need to add parameter explanations. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool baseline is 4, and the description adds no clutter. This is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('portfolios'), and the source ('Rentvine (live data)'). It also enumerates the returned fields (portfolio name, ID, active status, reserve amount, associated owners), making it distinct from sibling list tools like list_owners or list_properties. An agent immediately knows what this tool does.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is for retrieving all portfolios, which implicitly tells the agent when to use it (i.e., when a complete list of portfolios is needed). While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, it is unambiguous about its purpose and distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by its resource focus. Thus, clear context with no exclusions.

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