get_portfolio_overview

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: it describes the output shape as one row per app plus portfolio totals, hourly/country cards and a subscription event feed, and notes day changes the window.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with scope and the per-app framing, then the metric enumeration. The list is long but information-bearing, and the day remark is placed last as a secondary note. Minimal waste.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what is returned, and it does list rows, totals, cards and the event feed. Combined with annotations that cover safety and the fully documented parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination/return format specifics are absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (tz and day) are already documented in the schema. The description only adds 'Pass day for a past day,' which restates the schema default and adds no syntax or format detail; 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 states a specific resource (portfolio overview) and scope (every app in the workspace, one row per app), and enumerates the exact metrics returned. An agent can tell it is a cross-app summary rather than a per-app or single-metric pull. It does not, however, name a sibling tool it must be distinguished from.

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 is only implied through context: 'across every app in the workspace' contrasts with per-app tools and 'Same numbers as the Today screen' maps it to a known UI surface. There is no explicit when-to-use-versus-alternative guidance (e.g., versus get_today or get_revenue) and no exclusions.

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