get_portal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal extra context about the scope (full configuration details) and identifier flexibility, but does not disclose potential response size, error conditions, or any other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, includes the key parameter detail, and contains no redundant words or filler.

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 simple read-only getter with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does and how the parameter works. However, it does not detail the response structure or content of 'full configuration details', which could be ambiguous, but given the simplicity and annotations, this is a minor gap.

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%: the input schema's property description fully explains that 'id' accepts a sys_id or url_suffix with examples. The tool description repeats this information without adding new semantic detail, so it does not enhance what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full configuration details of a Service Portal', with a specific method 'by sys_id or URL suffix'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_portals (listing) and get_portal_page (page-level details).

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 implies usage context: use this tool when you need full configuration details for a specific portal identified by sys_id or URL suffix. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like list_portals for enumerating portals or get_portal_page for a specific page, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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