Get Eportfolio Pages

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' sentence adds nothing beyond structured data. The one piece of real behavioral information is 'with their text', which tells the agent page bodies are included rather than just titles—useful, but there is no note on payload size, pagination, or ordering.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the returned resource, with no padding. The trailing 'Read-only' is redundant against the annotations, which is the only wasted phrase.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, so the description needs only to identify the resource and its content—which it does. It stops short of explaining pagination behavior or result ordering for a potentially large text payload, a minor gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 (eportfolio_id and limit) are already documented in the schema, including the pointer to list_eportfolios and the note that smaller limits are faster. The description adds only the clarification that the portfolio must be 'one of yours', which is marginal; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the resource precisely ('the pages of one of your ePortfolios, with their text') and makes clear this is a per-ePortfolio page listing, which separates it from the sibling list_eportfolios that enumerates the portfolios themselves. The verb is implied rather than stated, but the noun phrase leaves no ambiguity about what is returned.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent to call list_eportfolios first to obtain the ID, nothing distinguishes this from get_page_content or list_pages for course pages, and nothing explains how the `limit` parameter should be chosen beyond what the schema already says. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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