Contract Testing: Admin Get System Account Tokens

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the administrative scope of the lookup; it says nothing extra about pagination behavior, result ordering, or what happens for an invalid account UUID.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the subsequent toolset and parameters blocks duplicate information already carried by the schema, which is wasted space for a three-parameter read tool. Structure is clear but not maximally economical.

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 list endpoint with a fully described schema and an output schema present, the definition covers what is needed to call it correctly. The only real omission is sibling disambiguation against contract-testing_list_api_tokens, which is a minor gap given the admin scope marker.

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%, so all three parameters (accountId, pageNumber, pageSize) are already documented with types and defaults in the schema. The description's parameter block restates them verbatim, adding no new meaning such as pagination limits or UUID format constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve API tokens') plus the owning scope ('for a system account (admin)'), so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling contract-testing_list_api_tokens, leaving the agent to infer which token-listing tool applies.

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 is only implied: the '(admin)' marker and the 'Admin' toolset note suggest this is for administrative, cross-account token inspection rather than the caller's own tokens. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus contract-testing_list_api_tokens, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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