request_program_credentials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that this is a state-changing action and describes conditional behavior around pool_id, email, and raw output. It does not mention authentication requirements or potential effects on the credential pool, so it is not 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and a state-changing warning, then provides prerequisite and conditional usage, followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, conditional email requirements, fallback behavior, and raw output, while the output schema handles return shape. It lacks explicit authentication/permission context, and since no annotations are provided, that small gap prevents a perfect score.

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 0%, but the description's Args section explains all four parameters with meaningful detail: program_slug, pool_id, email, and raw. This adds behavior and context well beyond the bare schema field names.

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?

Clear verb and object: 'Request credentials from a program credential pool.' It also flags the action as state-changing and references get_program_credentials, which distinguishes this write/request tool from the read-oriented sibling.

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 tells the agent to call get_program_credentials first, explains when an email is required, and states the fallback behavior when pool_id is omitted. This is strong when-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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