ise_ers_get_portal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It doesn't state what happens if the ID doesn't exist (error behavior), whether this is a read-only operation, what data the Portal object contains, or whether deployment selection affects which Portal is retrieved. For a retrieval tool, basic behavioral context about return semantics and error cases is missing. However, 'Get' implies a read operation.

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 extremely concise at one sentence. However, this borders on under-specification rather than efficient brevity—it's short because it says almost nothing beyond the tool name. The schema provides the deployment parameter documentation, so the structure is clean and front-loaded, but the brevity sacrifices necessary guidance.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a single vague purpose statement, this description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, notable fields, error handling, or the relationship between the id and the Portal object. It relies heavily on the agent understanding what 'Portals' means in the ISE context and what getting it by ID entails. The schema covers deployment well but leaves the core id parameter and behavioral expectations undocumented.

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 50% (the deployment parameter is described in the schema, but the required 'id' parameter has no description in either schema or tool description). The description 'by ID' only confirms the id parameter's role without adding format, type, or source guidance. The deployment parameter is well-documented in the schema, but the id parameter's semantics are assumed."

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 'Get a single Portals object by ID' uses a clear verb+resource pattern and specifies the resource type (Portals). However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like ise_ers_get_downloadableacl or ise_ers_get_guesttype beyond the resource name, which the tool name already conveys. It's clear what it does but provides minimal differentiation value.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are list, search, and get variants for Portal (ise_ers_list_portal, ise_ers_search_portal, ise_ers_get_portal) in the sibling tools, but the description doesn't explain when to prefer 'get' over 'search' or when the id-based lookup is appropriate. The deployment parameter is documented in the schema but not in the description.

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