search_portal_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of describing behavior. It discloses an important exclusion ('Excludes Esri's default basemaps') and the shape of the result ('eturns id, type, title and owner'). It does not mention pagination, ordering, or authentication, but for a read-only search tool these are secondary and the description adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, exclusion/scope, and use case/return fields. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides suficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly: what it searches, its scope, its exclusions, its use case, and the fields returned. It does not discuss edge cases like empty queries or result truncation, but these are minor given the schema's defaults and the tool's simple search nature.

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 67% with 'type' and 'query' documented. The description adds slight context by naming example item types but does not meaningfully elaborate on the parameters. The 'limit' parameter is self-explanatory from its name, default, and min/max constraints in the schema. Overall the description is not detrimental but provides only marginal added value over the schema.

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 verb ('Search'), the resource ('the ArcGIS portal's item catalog'), and its scope ('published by the municipality'). It enumerates example item types and explicitly distinguishes itself by noting it 'Excludes Esri's default basemaps' and covers items 'beyond the curated catalog', which sets it apart from sibling tools like list_public_apps.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover datasets or apps beyond the curated catalog.' It does not name specific sibling alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the phrase 'beyond the curated catalog' strongly implies an alternative curated-list tool and gives an agent enough context to select this over similar tools.

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