List packages received through portals

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read. The description adds genuine scoping behavior - it returns ONLY portal-hosted uploads and omits team packages - which is useful. It says nothing about pagination or result shape for a 14-parameter list tool, so it does not go far beyond the annotation.

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?

Three short sentences, scope stated up front, no filler. The middle sentence is grammatically broken ('Only packages that were uploaded to Portals returned by this tool' is missing a verb), which slightly hurts readability but not length.

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?

For a zero-required, 14-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential scope distinction but omits return format, pagination behavior, and default sort/limit semantics. The rich schema compensates for filters, but the description is thin relative to the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so all 14 parameters (filters, pagination, sort, date ranges) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get portal packages') and defines the resource precisely: packages uploaded by anyone to MASV Portals. It distinguishes this from the broader package set by noting you must combine team packages and portal packages, though it never names the sibling get_packages explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied ('To get full list of packages you need to get both team packages and portal packages'), which tells the agent this is one half of a complete listing, but the alternative tool is not named and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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