portfolio_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly states the operation is read-only, which is an important safety-relevant behavioral trait. It does not mention output format or data sources, but for a no-parameter health summary, this is reasonable disclosure.

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 two short sentences with no filler or repetition. 'Domain portfolio health summary for the tenant' is front-loaded and the 'Read-only' note is a clear standalone behavioral qualifier.

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?

The tool is simple and has no parameters, so the description is not wildly incomplete. However, with no output schema and no differentiation from sibling portfolio tools, an agent still does not know what the summary returns or when to prefer this tool over portfolio_renewal_risk or portfolio_exceptions. This leaves meaningful gaps for tool selection.

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 no properties and there are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline score of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed.

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 states the tool's purpose: it provides a domain portfolio health summary for the tenant. It is specific about the resource and type of information, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like tmgmt_health, portfolio_renewal_risk, or portfolio_exceptions.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. An agent gets no context about whether to choose portfolio_health over portfolio_renewal_risk or portfolio_exceptions, so the description leaves usage entirely to inference.

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