list_portfolios

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explicitly listing the data returned (names, IDs, asset compositions, status), which helps the agent set expectations. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful context for a read operation, though it omits details like pagination or ordering.

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 front-loads the action and lists key outputs. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple list operation with one optional parameter, a readOnlyHint, and an output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and return content. The low complexity means no additional behavioral details are necessary, making it complete.

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 single parameter 'limit' is fully self-descriptive in the schema ('Max portfolios to return') with a default value. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema description coverage, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'the user's existing portfolios', and specifies the output fields (names, IDs, asset compositions, status). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_portfolio (single portfolio) and create/update/delete mutations.

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 phrase 'List the user's existing portfolios' establishes a clear use case: enumerating all portfolios. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling set. A note pointing to get_portfolio for single-portfolio retrieval would make it a 5.

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