aggregate_portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'analytics' and 'DataMart aggregation' imply a read-only, non-REST-backed query, and the 'merged with componentType: project' behavior is disclosed via schema. It does not state result ordering, how truncation at limit behaves, or any caveats about summing budget across groups — meaningful gaps for a metrics 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?

Three tight sentences: capability first, provenance second, valid inputs third. Every clause carries information an agent needs and there is 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?

For a 2-required-parameter analytics tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description never hints at the result shape (group key plus metric values) or ordering, leaving the agent to guess what comes back. It does cover the input side well and flags the DataMart provenance.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value by enumerating the actual valid groupBy field paths (statusLabel, priorityLabel, methodology, customTypeLabel, isClosed, managers.name) where the schema only offers 'e.g.' examples. The metrics values and limit defaults are already fully documented in the schema, so nothing further is added there.

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 (aggregate/compute) and resource (portfolio-level project data) with the exact metrics available, which is far more informative than the bare name. However it never names a sibling such as query_datamart or search_projects to make the boundary explicit — an agent must infer which aggregation entry point is correct.

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 enumerated groupBy fields and the note 'no REST equivalent' implicitly tell the agent this is the DataMart path for grouped rollups rather than per-entity lookups. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' or 'not for single-project totals' guidance, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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