analysiere_echtes_portal

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose safety, side effects, or operational characteristics. It only mentions that execution happens outside the MCP event loop, which is a technical detail but does not inform the agent about permissions, reversibility, blocking behavior, or return values. The description misses the opportunity to compensate for the lack of 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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It does not front-load the essential purpose; instead, it gives an implementation detail. A short description is acceptable, but this one is vague and could have been more informative without being longer.

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?

Given this is a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is far from sufficient. Even though an output schema exists, the description does not provide enough context about when to use the tool, what it does, or how parameters relate to behavior. It is inadequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the three parameters (query, portal_name, allow_external). It does not explain what values these parameters take, what they represent, or how they influence the tool's behavior. The description entirely fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it 'executes the older real browser path outside the MCP event loop,' but does not clearly explain what the tool does with the portal or query. The verb is generic ('executes') and the resource is an implementation detail ('browser path'), making the purpose vague and indistinguishable from sibling tools like portal_suche or portal_recherche.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'outside the MCP event loop' hints at a specific use case, but no explicit when-to-use or exclusions are provided. Sibling tools are not mentioned, and no context is given for selecting this tool.

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