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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the critical single-attempt limitation and the consequence of a wrong PIN, plus the fact that it works on any wallet_fk/PIN combination. It could add side-effect details (e.g., whether the token is invalidated), but the key risk is covered.

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 largely concise and front-loaded, with the primary action in the first line. However, the first sentence is duplicated verbatim (repeated again in the second paragraph), which wastes a sentence. Overall structure with warnings and params is clear.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on usage and constraints. It covers the tool's purpose, the single-attempt rule, and the 'shortcut' context. It does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., that the user must have a PIN set via the website), but this is implied by the website reference in the warning.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds that pin is 5-digit numeric, which is useful. However, wallet_fk is described only as 'The wallet_fk', providing no additional meaning, and there is no guidance on how to obtain a valid wallet_fk.

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 retrieves a token using wallet_fk and a 5-digit PIN. It explicitly identifies itself as a shortcut to the token and notes it works on any wallet_fk/PIN combination, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like access_recover or session_2_token.

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 clear usage context: use this when you have a wallet_fk but no token. It also warns that only 1 attempt is allowed and that a wrong PIN forces sending the user back to the website, which guides behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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