portal_recherche

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'outside the MCP loop', which is cryptic, and does not explain side effects (e.g., writing a report file), permissions, or what 'loop' means. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely creates or modifies files.

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 in length, but it is severely under-specified. It provides no useful detail about inputs, outputs, or behavior, so the brevity does not contribute to usability.

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 is far from complete for a tool with five parameters and no annotations. It fails to explain the purpose of parameters, the meaning of 'outside the MCP loop', or how the research/evaluation/report flow works, making it inadequate for an agent to use 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 does not mention any parameter. None of the five parameters (portal_id, ort, profil_pfad, bericht_pfad, max_begriffe) are explained, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and expected values.

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 the tool 'researches, evaluates and writes a report', giving a clear sequence of actions and a resource (report). However, it does not specify which portal or input is used, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like bewerte_angebote and erstelle_bericht, which appear to cover similar ground.

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 description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any decision support.

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