portal_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that this is a composite aggregation, but it does not disclose potential size, latency, or dependence on other internal services. Given annotations, this is adequate but not richer than expected.

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, dense sentence front-loads the tool's composite nature and lists its components after a colon. Every word contributes; no filler or repetition.

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 required parameters, a fully-described input schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It could add explicit guidance about when not to use it or how the returned report is shaped, but those are minor gaps given the composite overview purpose.

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%; each parameter has its own description. The tool description helps contextualize parameters by listing the data feeds that hours_back and detail_level affect, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('aggregates') and resource ('portal overview'), then enumerates the exact data sources included (alert statistics, collector health, maintenance windows, noise scores, dead devices) and the intended output (shift-handoff report). This clearly distinguishes it from granular sibling tools like get_alerts or get_collector_health.

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 states a clear use case: 'shift-handoff report,' which tells an agent when to select this composite view. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, like saying 'use individual get_* tools for granular queries,' so it stops short of a 5.

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