Get Portal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by stating the resource identity options (uuid or slug) and listing the return payload fields, but no additional behavioral context like pagination, error handling, or ETag semantics is disclosed.

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 concise single sentence plus a compact return-list enumerator. It front-loads the purpose and packs the payload details efficiently. No filler or redundancy.

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 the tool is a simple single-parameter read with strong readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adequately covers what it does and what it returns. Though there's no output schema, the description lists the return components (counts, domains, urls, navigation, theme overrides, ETag), which mitigates the missing output schema. Slight gap: no note on what happens for an invalid or ambiguous uuid/slug.

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 there's only 1 parameter (portalRef). The description mentions lookup 'by uuid or slug' which tells the agent what type of reference is acceptable, so there is some added meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify the expected format/type of uuid vs slug, so the single parameter's semantics are only partially elaborated.

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 tool fetches one portal by uuid or slug and enumerates exactly what it returns (counts, domains, urls, navigation, theme overrides, navigation ETag). The verb+resource+lookup-method is specific and distinct from siblings like kilango_list_portals (list) and kilango_get_portal_preview (preview).

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 establishes the lookup by uuid or slug, which gives context on how to identify a resource, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like kilango_get_portal_preview, kilango_get_portal_navigation, or kilango_get_portal_readiness. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are named.

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