Portfolio — every app at once

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds substantial behavioral context: auth requirements and the 403 outcome, the ORG_REQUIRED 400 disambiguation, and detailed failure semantics (readErrors, unreadable columns reported as unknown rather than zero, holes null when integrations can't be read). It also defines non-obvious enum members ('unknown and not_connected never mean healthy', 'never_run means not checked yet').

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, and with no output schema every sentence about card fields, return keys and failure handling earns its place. The opening sentence is a long run-on enumeration with heavy parentheticals, which slightly hurts scannability, but there is essentially no filler to cut.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent actually needs: the full return shape ({organizationId, organizationName, cards, totalProjects, repeatedGroups, holes, readErrors}), the meaning of ambiguous card states, auth and error-code behavior, and the routing alternative. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema's 'defaults to the key owner's only organization when omitted' by explaining the multi-org failure path (400 ORG_REQUIRED lists the choices). UUID format itself is left to the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource+scope ('Return every project in one organization as a card') and immediately enumerates what each card contains. It also distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by routing two-or-more-app problems to list_portfolio_findings, so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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?

States the alternative explicitly and the condition that selects it ('Use list_portfolio_findings for the problems open in two or more apps'), and gives the orgId-omission decision path plus the 400 ORG_REQUIRED branch when several organizations exist. The auth precondition (account-level key vs 403 for a project-bound key) is spelled out rather than implied.

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