get_portal_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'returns the details' but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions (e.g., invalid key), or what happens if the key does not exist. The parenthetical about wrapping NBAPI hints at an API call but adds no behavioral clarity. A simple getter still needs explicit assurance of non-mutation or side-effect-free behavior, which is absent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that gets to the point. However, the parenthetical '(wraps NBAPI GetPortalGroup)' is an implementation detail that does not help the agent decide when to call the tool and may add noise. Removing it would improve conciseness, but the overall structure is efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description leaves the return structure undefined. Saying 'details' is vague; an agent cannot anticipate what fields will be returned (e.g., group name, members, permissions). For a getter, the description should at least hint at the typical content of a portal group or indicate it returns the full object. Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is inadequate for an agent to reason about downstream usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'for a given PORTALGROUPKEY' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'The unique PORTALGROUPKEY of the portal group to retrieve.' The description neither clarifies format, constraints, nor relationship to other parameters (there are none). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already explains the parameter.

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 verb 'returns', the resource 'portal group', and the scope 'single' with a specific key. It differentiates from the plural sibling 'get_portal_groups' by emphasizing 'single' and 'given PORTALGROUPKEY'. The mention of wrapping NBAPI is implementation detail but does not obscure the purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions such as 'use this when you have a specific portal group key' or contrast with get_portal_groups or find_portals. The agent must infer from the name and the key requirement, which is insufficient for a tool set with many similar getters.

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