list_featured_contributions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-oriented list operation and adds a selection criterion, but it does not disclose potential behavior like pagination, ordering, response shape, or any access requirements. This is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves room for more transparency.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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-parameter list tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource and the filtering criterion. However, without an output schema, it would benefit from a brief note about what is returned (e.g., list of portal IDs/names), so it is not quite a 5.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter schemas is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed since the schema is empty and coverage is complete.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('featured contribution portals') with a parenthetical explaining what 'featured' means in the UI. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_contributions and get_contribution.

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 parenthetical '(those highlighted in the org UI)' implies when to use this tool—when you need only UI-featured contribution portals—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as list_contributions for unfiltered lists. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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