Advisor portfolio

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds access scoping ('every farm they can review') and the aggregated status fields returned, but it does not cover pagination, empty-state behavior, or deeper authorization requirements.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with audience and scope, with no filler. It efficiently packs the returned fields without repeating structured data.

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?

With zero parameters, read-only/idempotent annotations, and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns. It names the farm portfolio and status counts, though it leaves some ambiguity about how this differs from other list/reporting tools.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 the resource ('every farm they can review') and enumerates the payload (entries, missing compliance fields, pending, flagged and approved counts, traffic light). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_farms or advisor_pending, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Only audience context ('For advisors and owners') is given. There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition selecting this tool over list_farms, group_overview, or advisor_pending, and no exclusions.

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