get_virtual_credential_request

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: an unknown card format returns FAIL with 'CARDFORMAT NOT FOUND'. It also states the exact return fields (CARDFORMAT, PERSONID, STATUS). It does not mention permissions or side effects, but as a read operation, the error disclosure is valuable.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, return fields, and error handling with routing. No wasted words; the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states what it returns, how it can fail, and where to find valid parameter values. Minor omission: it doesn't explain the meaning of STATUS values, but that's not essential for invoking the tool correctly.

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%; both parameters already have descriptive text in the schema. The description adds marginal semantic value by linking CARDFORMAT to get_card_formats and mentioning the failure condition, but the schema already defines the parameters adequately.

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 ('Retrieves'), the resource ('mobile (virtual) credential and its assignment state'), and the scope ('for a person and card format'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by returning CARDFORMAT, PERSONID, and STATUS, and explicitly references get_card_formats for valid names.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to fetch a credential's assignment state for a given person and card format. It explicitly names get_card_formats as an alternative when the card format is unknown, providing a when-not condition and routing.

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