get_portal_states

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It says the tool 'lists' states and wraps NBAPI GetPortalStates, and specifies the return shape. It does not mention authentication, side effects, or pagination, but for a simple list operation this is a reasonable but not fully comprehensive disclosure.

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 adds only relevant context about the wrapper and the relationship to get_portal_statuses. No filler or redundant 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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, return value shape, and how it relates to a sibling tool. It is slightly light on behavioral details such as auth requirements, but the simplicity of the operation and the strong schema coverage keep it nearly complete.

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% and the single optional PORTALSTATES parameter has a clear enum description. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does explain the relationship between the returned STATEKEY values and get_portal_statuses, which is useful context beyond 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 lists portal states, identifies the underlying API wrapper, and describes the output as STATEKEY/STATENAME pairs. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_portal_statuses by explaining that this tool provides the vocabulary used by that tool's filter.

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 when to use this tool: when you need the set of valid portal states or the acceptable STATEKEY values for get_portal_statuses. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the connection to get_portal_statuses gives clear contextual guidance.

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