get_virtual_credential_request

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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description still adds real behavior by disclosing the FAIL/"CARDFORMAT NOT FOUND" error semantics and the backing NBAPI call. It does not mention auth requirements or result cardinality, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the return fields and failure note. The parenthetical implementation reference is a minor cost but earns its place for traceability.

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 2-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, return fields, and the key failure mode, so nothing essential is missing. Rate limits, pagination, or auth context are absent but not critical here.

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% with both params described, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of an invalid CARDFORMAT (FAIL with 'CARDFORMAT NOT FOUND') and pointing at get_card_formats, adding meaning the schema does not carry.

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) and resource (mobile/virtual credential and its assignment state) with scope qualifying it (for a person and card format). It also names the return fields, letting an agent distinguish it from generic person/card lookups among the ~45 siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes to get_card_formats for valid CARDFORMAT names and explains the failure path when the controller does not know the format. It lacks a broader when-to-use/when-not statement versus other credential tools, but the parameter-sourcing guidance is concrete.

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