get_suite_portfolio_summary

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies read-only via 'live statistics'. It says nothing about whether the aggregation is expensive or slow across all datasets, whether a missing or invalid proApiKey degrades results silently, caching freshness, or what tier of statistics arrives without the key. That last point matters most since it changes the result the agent receives.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is well sized for what it conveys, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than polished concision.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only place an agent could learn what the aggregate actually contains, and it stops at 'live statistics'. For a two-parameter aggregating tool whose entire value is the shape of the returned summary, that leaves the caller unable to predict the response.

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 description coverage is 100% and both optional parameters are documented there, including the default for 'detailed' and that proApiKey unlocks extended metrics. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 for fully-documented schemas applies.

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-and-resource pair: 'Aggregate live statistics' over 'all active B2B lead datasets and products in the Prong 2 Marketplace Suite'. The scope is clear enough to distinguish it from the domain-scanning and sequence-generation siblings, which all operate on a single domain or campaign. The only weakness is unexplained jargon ('Prong 2 Marketplace Suite') that an agent cannot resolve from the description alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. The description never says whether this is the right first call to orient in the suite, or a reporting call to run after the individual audits, leaving the agent to infer its role from the word 'Aggregate'.

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