list_portal_widgets

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already convey that this is a safe, read-only operation, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. However, it adds little beyond stating 'List' and 'optional search', with no mention of pagination, default limit (though limit is in schema), or return shape. This is minimal additional context beyond an already informative annotation set.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words, and every phrase serves a purpose.

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?

The tool is a straightforward read-only list operation with two optional parameters and no output schema, so the minimal description is partly sufficient. However, it lacks context about what the returned list contains, how it relates to sibling tools like list_widget_instances, and the discrepancy between 'category' and 'description' is a gap. The annotations help, but the description doesn't fully cover the context.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description introduces an inconsistency by saying 'search by name or category' while the query parameter description says 'name or description.' This misalignment could confuse an agent selecting search terms. The description fails to add value beyond the schema and actively contradicts it.

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 'List' and the resource 'Service Portal widgets', making its purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_portal_widget, create_portal_widget, and update_portal_widget by focusing on listing. The optional search clause is a useful addition, even though it uses 'category' instead of the schema's 'description'.

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 such as get_portal_widget or list_portal_pages. It does not state any exclusions or mention prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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