Contract Testing: Admin Get System Account Tokens

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Retrieve' aligns with those. The description adds the system-account scope but not additional behavioral context such as authorization requirements or response/pagination behavior beyond the schema.

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 summary sentence is front-loaded and clear. However, the parameter list duplicates the input schema almost verbatim, adding redundancy rather than new guidance for an agent.

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 simple read-only, paginated lookup with 3 fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is largely complete. The main gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not characterize the returned token objects or paginated response format.

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%, and the description repeats the same parameter meanings provided by the schema without adding new details. Since the structured schema already documents accountId, pageNumber, and pageSize, the description provides no additional parameter value.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and identifies the resource ('API tokens for a system account'), which clearly differentiates this from generic token listing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling contract-testing_list_api_tokens, so the agent must infer the discriminator from the system-account qualifier.

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 'Admin' toolset label and 'system account' qualifier imply this is for administrative retrieval, giving some context. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over contract-testing_list_api_tokens or any exclusion of non-admin contexts.

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