ise_ers_search_portal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what ERS filter expression syntax is expected, what happens on no matches, or whether results are paginated/limited. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single efficient sentence with no waste. It front-loads the core purpose. Well structured for what it contains.

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?

This is a search/filter tool with 5 parameters (0 required), no output schema, and only 20% schema coverage. It needs to explain ERS filter syntax, relation to the list variant, and pagination behavior. The one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct a filter expression or choose this over ise_ers_list_portal.

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 20% (only the deployment parameter has a description). The description mentions 'ERS filter expressions' in prose, which hints at the filter parameter's purpose, but it does not explain the page, size, or sort parameter semantics beyond what the bare schema types imply. With 80% of parameters undocumented in the schema, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 states 'Search/filter Portals with ERS filter expressions' which has a clear verb and resource. However, since the sibling tools include both ise_ers_search_portal and ise_ers_list_portal, the description does not distinguish what makes 'search' different from generic listing (e.g., whether it supports filter-based search vs pagination). It's clear but not differentiated from siblings.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this search tool versus ise_ers_list_portal or the generic ise_ers_search. The only usage context comes from the deployment parameter description which mentions calling ise_list_deployments, but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance for the search vs list decision.

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