find_portals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses case-insensitive matching, the all-terms-must-match rule, the fields searched, the full-page reads of GetPortals and GetReaders, the join key READERKEY, and the special case of portals with no reader description. This is far beyond what the minimal schema or annotations would provide.

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?

Every sentence is functional: the first states what it finds, the second clarifies name semantics and examples, the third defines exact matching behavior, and the fourth explains the no-reader-description edge case. There is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 low complexity (one required parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough detail for an agent to invoke it correctly and understand matching behavior. It does not describe the output shape or error cases, but those are less critical for a search-style tool when the matching and result inclusion behavior are already clearly specified.

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?

Although the schema already describes the single query parameter with examples, the description adds substantial meaning beyond it: whitespace-separated terms are treated as separate search terms, matching is case-insensitive, and every term must appear for a match. These semantic rules materially affect how an agent should construct a query, so the description earns credit above the baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'Finds' with a clearly defined resource, 'portals (doors)' and explains exactly what is searched: name, reader names, and reader descriptions. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling raw-listing tools like get_portals and get_readers by describing a joined, term-based search rather than a raw retrieval. The example site codes and human-readable names make the intent unmistakable.

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 the main use case: searching for portals by location or name rather than listing all portals. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus siblings like get_portals or get_readers, and it gives no exclusion criteria. The agent must infer the alternative from the sibling list and context.

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