portal_consents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, and mentioning that it returns status adds some behavioral context. Still, it does not disclose potential caveats such as scoping to the current user, available status values, or whether the response lists historical consents.

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 short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the relevant qualifier about status. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only portal tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential information: what is fetched and that status is included. It could be more detailed about return shape or status values, but the low complexity makes the one-liner reasonably complete.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly introduces no parameter information because there are no parameters to document.

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 ('Get') and identifies a clear resource ('consent forms (agreements)') plus the key attribute ('their status'). It is distinct from sibling tools like portal_inbox and portal_assignments, which cover different portal domains, so an agent can easily tell when this tool is relevant.

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 context is implied: use this tool when consent forms and their status are needed. However, the description provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no mention of alternatives, and no special conditions, so the guidance is only implicit.

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