network_tcp_udp_port_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, performs network calls, or has any side effects. The mention of 'reference' suggests non-destructive nature, but this is not explicit.

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 brief but includes redundant phrases like 'Menu ID: tcp_udp_port_reference' and 'TCP/UDP Port Reference' that merely restate the tool name. It could be more concise by removing these and front-loading the core functionality.

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 has 6 parameters (5 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for a complete understanding. It does not cover parameter usage or return format, and relies on an external describe_tool call for full guidance.

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 only 17% (only worker_id has a description). The description does not explain any of the required parameters (search, protocol, range, category, limit) beyond their names, so the agent receives no added meaning for these critical inputs.

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's purpose: 'Search a comprehensive TCP and UDP port database. Find port numbers for HTTP, HTTPS, SSH, FTP, DNS, SMTP, and thousands of registered network services.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like network_port_scan (which actually scans ports) by being a reference lookup.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like network_port_scan. It implies usage for port number lookup but offers no exclusions or context about when not to use it.

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