portal_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens if neither parameter is supplied, whether results are exhaustive or paginated, or any auth/rate constraints. With annotations carrying the burden, a low-but-not-failing score is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the lookup target and both access paths come first. Nothing in the sentence is redundant with the title or repeated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, the tool accepts two optional parameters with zero required ones, and the description never states the behavior when neither is provided (return all portals vs. error), which is the one real gap for an agent deciding how to call it.

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%, and the schema itself is rich (keyword substring scope across name/type/operator, plus id slug examples). The description merely restates "by id or by keyword" without adding format or matching semantics, so it sits at the baseline for well-documented schemas.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Look up a UAE government portal") and the two access modes (by id or by keyword), which is concrete and unambiguous. It does not differentiate from sibling tools that also surface UAE government information (e.g. data_dubai_search, list_banks), but no near-duplicate sibling exists, so the gap is minor.

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 prefer portal lookup over related siblings like data_dubai_search or chamber_of_commerce_info, and no statement of exclusions or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose statement.

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