planview_search_portfolios

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about matching semantics (substring vs token), ranking, permissions/tenant scoping, or error behavior on no matches. 'Tenant-supported' is the only behavioral hint and it is undefined.

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 no filler. It is efficiently sized, though it borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and only one descriptive sentence for a search tool. The agent is not told what a result looks like, how many fields, or how to interpret ordering, so the definition is thin for the operation's complexity.

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%, so both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline score of 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but nothing is missing either.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('portfolios'), scoped to a text query on names or descriptions. It is distinguishable from planview_get_portfolio (single fetch), but it never explicitly contrasts itself with planview_list_portfolios, which would be the nearest alternative.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as planview_list_portfolios for unfiltered enumeration. The phrase 'tenant-supported text query' hints at a constraint but does not tell the agent what that constraint means in practice or which tool to pick instead.

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