cfbd_portal

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable caveats: the return shape is unverified and sourced from vendor docs, advising the agent to inspect the actual payload. It also discloses the auth requirement (CFBD_API_KEY), which annotations do not cover. This is exemplary transparency for a tool with no live verification.

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 well-organized and front-loaded with a clear summary, followed by return shape, critical caveat, example, and auth note. Each section earns its place; the length is justified by the need to warn about unverified data and auth requirements. It is not bloated.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is remarkably complete: it gives the return shape, an example invocation, authentication details, and a warning about data reliability. With no output schema and a low-complexity tool, the description covers all essential aspects for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 fully documents the 'year' parameter with baseline coverage. The description adds a concrete example (2024 portal -> {"year": 2024}), which clarifies how to pass the value. This enriches the param semantics beyond the schema's simple 'Season year.'

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 identifies the tool as returning transfer-portal moves for a season, with origin, destination, and rating. The scope and domain are specific, and it stands apart from sibling tools like cfbd_games or cfbd_teams. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'get' or 'list'), relying on a noun phrase and example to convey the action.

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 implies usage: when you need transfer-portal moves for a specific season. It provides an example call but does not state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., other CFBD endpoints). There are no explicit exclusions or alternative comparisons.

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