Themes

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds useful context about the tool's purpose and scope, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior that could be helpful beyond the annotations.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first defines what the tool does, and the second provides usage guidance. There's no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with 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?

For a read-only, parameterless tool with comprehensive annotations, the description provides adequate context about purpose and usage. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what the response looks like (e.g., format, structure, or example output), which would be helpful for an agent to understand what to expect.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on the tool's purpose and usage, which is the correct approach for a parameterless tool.

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 action ('List'), resource ('user portal themes'), and scope ('configured in the RAS farm'), with specific details about what's included ('branding, logos, and customisation settings'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on themes rather than other infrastructure components like certificates or connection brokers.

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 provides explicit usage contexts ('review portal appearance configuration' and 'verify theme assignments'), giving clear guidance on when to use this tool. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools for related tasks, preventing a perfect score.

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