get_subject_portals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses deterministic alphabetical ordering, returned fields (nodeId, name, description, optional Themenseiten-URL, disciplines/educational contexts), and the conditional presence of a Themenseite. It does not mention auth or errors, but for a read-only listing tool this is sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: scope, context, usage guidance, and return details. No filler or repetition of schema information that wouldn't add value.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough to understand what the tool returns and when to use it. It covers ordering, fields, and the optional inclusion of content counts indirectly via the schema. It could be more complete by mentioning outputFormat behavior or pagination limits, but these are not critical for this list-style tool.

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 coverage is 67%, with two of three params described. The description adds context about the output fields but does not elaborate on the outputFormat parameter beyond the schema enum/default. The educationalContext and includeContentCounts descriptions in the schema cover their semantics; the tool description does not add significant new param meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Lists the WLO Fachportale — the first-level Sammlungen directly under the WLO root collection.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by emphasizing top-level subject hubs and positioning itself as the entry point for drill-downs, unlike search or collection-navigation tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user wants an overview of what subjects/topics are covered, or as the natural entry point for guided drill-downs.' It does not provide explicit exclusions or name alternative tools, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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