generate_portfolio_brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content-scope context (what the brief contains), but says nothing about output format, latency, or the fact that portfolioId must belong to the caller beyond what the schema notes. Adds some value over annotations, but not rich behavioral detail.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose and contents, the second gives the audience/use-case. No filler, and the most important information leads.

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 must carry return-value burden; it does so adequately by naming the brief's components (per-company performance, market context, cross-portfolio opportunities). Missing practicals such as format and whether the brief is persisted, but it is largely complete for a read-only report generator.

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 100%, with periodStart/periodEnd/periodType/portfolioId each documented and defaults stated in the schema. The description only alludes to 'a reporting period' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Generates) plus the resource (a board/LP-grade intelligence brief for a portfolio) and enumerates the contents (per-company performance, market context, cross-portfolio opportunities). The audience/use-case framing (PE/VC fund reporting) further narrows it against generic reporting siblings. An agent can tell this apart from get_portfolio_readiness_rollup or get_pre_brief without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage with 'For PE/VC fund reporting and quarterly reviews,' giving clear context for when to invoke it. It does not name any alternative tool or a when-not condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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