Browse source → box → folder

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: counts are drawn from a 'local snapshot' (implying staleness), folder labels are self-described as quoted data, and it imposes a grounding rule about not asserting dates/names/quotes unless they appear verbatim in portal_get_page_text output.

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?

Front-loaded with the single sentence that defines the tool, followed by two short grounding/injection directives. No filler, no restatement of the name, and each sentence carries either scope or a constraint that changes agent behavior.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The one gap is the zero-required-parameter case: the description does not say that calling with no arguments lists the top-level sources, which is the obvious entry point for a drill-down 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 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds traversal semantics the schema does not: source opens a source, box opens within a source, and folder labels are the terminal enumerated level rather than a parameter. That clarifies why only two drill-down parameters exist.

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 gives a specific verb ('Walk') and a concrete resource (the archive's own structure), and enumerates the traversal order: sources, boxes, folder labels. It implicitly separates itself from portal_search by framing this as structural browsing rather than querying, though it never names a sibling 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 only implied: browsing the hierarchy is the alternative to searching it, but the description never states when to choose portal_browse over portal_search or catalog_search, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer that this is the no-query, drill-down path.

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