portfolio_exceptions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only, GET-only' which covers safety and method. It also mentions 'Prioritized' indicating ordering behavior. It does not detail response format or error handling, but for a zero-parameter GET tool this is sufficient. No contradictions exist.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key behavioral trait (read-only). Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy. It is exceptionally concise while remaining informative.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (an exception queue), how it is derived, and that it is read-only. The agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without further elaboration.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no param-specific information, but none is needed. The schema is empty and covered 100% by default, so this dimension is satisfied.

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 identifies the tool as a prioritized exception queue derived from portfolio health, and specifies the types of issues (expiring certificates, commerce issues). It also states it is read-only and GET-only, distinguishing it from potential write tools. This is a specific verb-like resource description with clear scope.

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 the tool is for retrieving exceptions, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like portfolio_health or portfolio_renewal_risk. No when-not guidance or alternative routing is provided. The derivation from portfolio health gives some context, but the agent must infer the intended use case.

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