get_portfolio

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does state a read-only safety profile plus permission scoping and the exclusion of private maps. It does not address pagination, result limits, or how much data a large portfolio returns, which matters for an aggregate read with no output schema.

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 scope constraint and exclusion are front-loaded before the payload enumeration, and the 'Read-only' tag closes the sentence efficiently. The single long sentence is dense but every clause carries distinct information; no 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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, exclusions, permission basis, and the shape of returned content, which is what an agent needs. The remaining gap is volume/pagination behavior on large portfolios.

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 schema already documents the single optional parameter at 100% coverage, including the YYYY-MM-DD format and server-date default. The description merely restates 'Optional today=YYYY-MM-DD' without adding meaning such as why an agent would backdate it, so baseline 3 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read the portfolio overview') and immediately bounds scope to 'all team and shared maps the key owner can read (private maps are excluded),' which implicitly separates it from single-map siblings like get_map. It then enumerates exactly what the overview contains, so an agent knows what it gets without opening anything else.

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?

Usage context is clear: use this for a cross-map, permission-scoped aggregate view, mirroring the Organization page, and private maps are explicitly out of scope. It stops short of naming an alternative for single-map needs (e.g., get_map), so the agent must infer that routing itself.

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