Get Signed Portfolio Artifact

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

Adds context beyond annotations: declares the operation idempotent with no side effects, explains error handling (auth/RBAC/failure surfaced as errors), and confirms read-only nature aligning with readOnlyHint. No contradiction.

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?

The description is informative and front-loaded with core purpose, but slightly verbose. Each sentence earns its place, though minor tightening possible without losing clarity.

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?

Fully covers all aspects for a simple one-parameter tool: use case, prerequisites, parameter behavior, error semantics, and sibling differentiation. Output schema exists, so return details are not needed in description.

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%, and the description only restates the parameter's default behavior already in the schema ('Omit to use gateway default current model'). No additional parameter meaning or constraints beyond schema.

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 specifies a precise verb-resource combination ('get signed portfolio artifact'), details the content (operator list + Ed25519 signing material), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like paybond_get_portfolio_summary and paybond_get_reputation_receipt.

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 states when to use (portable signed snapshot for offline checks), when not to use (not for public leaderboard), provides alternatives for related tasks, and lists required credentials (PAYBOND_API_KEY with read access).

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