search_portfolio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that searches are 'fast metadata-based lookups' which adds useful behavioral context about performance characteristics. However, it doesn't mention important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with no results, error conditions, or authentication requirements for accessing the portfolio.

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 appropriately sized with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and searchable fields, while the second adds important behavioral context about the search mechanism. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 search tool with 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and how it works. However, it lacks information about return format, result structure, pagination behavior, or error handling, which would be helpful given the complexity of the search functionality.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions searching by 'content name, metadata, keywords, tags, or description' which aligns with the schema parameters, but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's already documented in the comprehensive parameter descriptions in the schema.

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, and specifies it uses a portfolio index for fast metadata-based lookups. It provides a specific verb ('search') and resource ('local portfolio'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_all', 'search_by_verb', or 'search_collection' beyond mentioning 'local' scope.

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, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_all', 'search_by_verb', or 'search_collection'. It mentions 'local' scope which provides some context, but lacks clear when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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