get_portal_statuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds the genuinely behavioral trait that this is live/current state rather than stored configuration, and notes it wraps NBAPI GetPortalStatuses. It omits auth needs, pagination, and large-result behavior, so it is helpful but not complete.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the config-vs-status distinction, followed by the filter summary and vocabulary routing. The PORTALSTATUS field enumeration is long but justified since no output schema exists; slightly dense overall.

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, enumerating the returned PORTALSTATUS fields (PORTALKEY, STATEKEY, STATENAME, etc.) is exactly the missing context an agent needs, and the vocabulary cross-references close the loop on filter values. Only pagination/partition-default and auth expectations are absent.

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% and each parameter already documents itself and cross-references the vocabulary tools, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only summarizes 'filter by portal, state, partition or location' and never mentions ALLPARTITIONS, adding marginal meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the live status of portals') and explicitly carves out scope versus the sibling: 'the current state of each door, not its configuration'. An agent can distinguish this from get_portals without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage context ('Filter by portal, state, partition or location') and routes the agent to sibling tools for parameter vocabularies (get_portal_states for STATEKEY, get_locations for LOCATIONKEY). It does not state an explicit when-not or name get_portals as the configuration alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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