Get Signed Portfolio Artifact

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: true. The description adds 'tenant-scoped' and 'signed', which are useful behavioral traits, but does not discuss security implications, data sensitivity, or potential side effects. With annotations covering safety, the description provides moderate additional context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose with no extraneous words. It front-loads the action and resource.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description omits explanation of the only input parameter 'score_version'. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate but fails to do so. The tool's role in 'portable verifier and partner sharing' is mentioned but not elaborated.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'score_version'. The description does not explain its purpose, format, or whether it affects the output. This is a critical gap that forces the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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?

The description clearly specifies the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('tenant-scoped signed Signal portfolio artifact'), and the purpose ('portable verifier and partner sharing'). It distinguishes from siblings like paybond_get_portfolio_summary by emphasizing 'signed' and 'sharing' use case.

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 description implies usage for portable verifier and partner sharing, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool compared to siblings. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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