mehrportal_suche

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only mentions that the search happens in a worker thread. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it launches browser sessions, modifies profiles, or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely interacts with browser state.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is under-specifying: while it is brief, it omits critical information such as parameter semantics and usage context. Being short is helpful, but not at the expense of necessary detail.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context about what 'aktive Browser- und Feed-Quellen' means, how the worker thread affects the caller, or whether there are prerequisites. Given the tool's complexity (4 optional parameters, multiple portal-related siblings), this description is incomplete.

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 mentions none of the four parameters (ort, query, portal_ids, profil_pfad). The agent receives zero explanation of what these fields mean or how they relate to the search. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 a clear verb ('Durchsucht') and resource ('aktive Browser- und Feed-Quellen'), plus a technical context ('Worker-Thread'). It communicates the tool's function effectively, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'portal_suche' or 'analysiere_echtes_portal'.

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 vs. alternatives. No use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The only implicit hint is the tool name, which is insufficient for an agent to choose correctly among the many sibling tools.

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