dealdesk.portfolio_evaluate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses one trait: the call is side-effect free. It says nothing about auth requirements, how invalid configurations are reported, or whether results are cached, which leaves meaningful gaps for an evaluation 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?

A single compact sentence with the key constraint "(side-effect free)" placed up front and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the under-specification noted elsewhere.

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?

For a tool with a required nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It never explains the expected configuration structure or what the evaluation returns, so an agent lacks what it needs to call this correctly.

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 50%: projectId and revisionId carry descriptions, but the required "configuration" (a nested object) and "locale" are undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning, most critically for the required nested configuration whose shape an agent must know.

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 gives a specific verb ("Evaluate") and resource ("a CPQ configuration against the Portfolio"), so an agent can identify the operation. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling dealdesk.portfolio_summary or explain what "Portfolio" means in this context, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like portfolio_summary, create_quote_from_configuration, or render_quote_totals. No prerequisites, preconditions, or exclusions are stated beyond the terse "(side-effect free)".

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