portfolio_health

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It explains that the tool returns raw signals and the client computes health scores, and notes the server-side join behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or disclose any potential side effects or permissions needed.

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?

Description is concise: a single-line summary followed by context and a well-structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and parameters. It explains the return type (raw signals) and the filtering options. Minor missing details about pagination or error cases, but overall complete for its complexity.

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 0% but the description provides meaningful explanations for all 6 parameters, including the ilike search behavior for manager and customer, defaults, and the purpose of lookahead_days and timezone_offset. Adds value beyond the schema's name and type.

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?

Description clearly states it provides a portfolio overview with one row per project, joined server-side. Distinguishes itself from the project_status_report and project_profitability tools it replaces. Purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 mentions it replaces the project_status_report and project_profitability pair, giving context on when to use it instead. Provides rationale (avoiding duplicate name issues) but does not include explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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