check_portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it specifies accepted input formats and describes the return shape (one line per property, total £65/property fee, earliest deadline, every FAIL/WARN). It still omits whether the operation is strictly read-only, permission requirements, and error behavior.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then input formats, then return summary. Every sentence adds operational value with no filler.

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 there is no output schema or annotations, the description provides enough to call the tool correctly: input formats, required keys, and high-level return values. The exact structure of each per-property line and error handling remain unspecified.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaningful detail for the portfolio parameter by listing the expected CSV header keys and JSON object shape, though it does not mention the today override parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource (check English rental properties) and explicitly scopes it to batch operation ('many at once'). This distinguishes it from the single-property sibling check_property without needing to name it.

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 batch scope ('many ... at once') gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus a single-property check. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name the alternative, so it stops short of full guidance.

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