search_portfolio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool searches 'local portfolio' and uses a 'portfolio index for fast metadata-based lookups', which adds useful context about scope and performance. However, it does not cover aspects like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying detail about the search mechanism. It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating scope from behavior).

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and search scope but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or result formatting, which are important for a search tool with multiple toggle parameters.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing searchable fields (e.g., content name, metadata, keywords) but does not provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 tool searches a local portfolio by content name, metadata, keywords, tags, or description, specifying it uses a portfolio index for fast metadata-based lookups. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_all', 'search_by_verb', or 'search_collection' by emphasizing local, metadata-focused searching.

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 for searching local portfolio elements based on metadata, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_all' or 'search_collection'. It provides some context (e.g., 'fast metadata-based lookups') but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives.

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