Get domain portfolio

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the required permission scope with its preset, and the fact that domain-scoped API keys only work for their bound domain. This is real auth/constraint disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource identity, no filler or repetition. The opening 'dashboard' framing is slightly label-like but the auth constraint follows immediately and earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should describe what the portfolio call returns; 'dashboard' is too vague to tell an agent what metrics or entities come back. The permission and key-scoping notes are valuable, but the return-value gap keeps this only minimally complete.

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 description coverage is 0% for both required parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only hints at domain scoping via the API-key note and never explains orgSlug, domainSlug, or their expected format, leaving the agent to guess at identifier conventions.

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 labels the resource ('Domain-level portfolio dashboard') but never states a concrete verb or what a 'portfolio' actually contains, so an agent cannot tell what data is retrieved. It does not differentiate this tool from nearby siblings such as air_get_domain or air_list_domains.

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?

It states the prerequisite scope ('Requires portfolio:read (fullPipeline preset)') and an API-key constraint, which implies when the call can succeed. However, it gives no guidance on when to pick this tool over air_get_domain or the other domain-scoped readers.

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