get-eportfolio

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond that, such as response format, error handling, or exclusions (e.g., that pages are not included). It meets the minimal bar set by the annotations but does not enrich the agent's understanding beyond them.

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 entire description is a single short sentence: 'Get details for a single ePortfolio by ID.' It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains zero filler words, and every word contributes to the meaning. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description suffices: it identifies the resource and the lookup key. It could be enhanced by clarifying what 'details' includes (e.g., whether it encompasses all attributes or excludes pages), but given the sibling 'get-eportfolio-pages' exists, the agent can infer some separation. Overall, complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: the only parameter 'eportfolioId' is described as 'The ID of the ePortfolio'. The description simply rephrases this as 'by ID', adding no new meaning. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate with additional parameter-level context.

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 tool 'Get details for a single ePortfolio by ID', using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a single ePortfolio'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list-eportfolios' (plural) and 'get-eportfolio-pages' (which targets pages), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a specific ePortfolio when you have its ID, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'list-eportfolios' for finding IDs or note when not to use it, so it misses the full 'when/when-not' guidance that would earn a 5.

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