Detokenize Strac tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the authorization requirement, the key requirement, the live-mode restriction, and the 10-token-per-call limit. This is meaningful beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover error behavior or non-live-mode differences.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by critical constraints. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 output schema already covers return values, so the description's focus on authorization, key requirements, and input limits is sufficient for a single-parameter tool. Minor gaps such as non-live-mode behavior are acceptable given the explicit live-mode constraint.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for token_ids (0% coverage). The description compensates by defining the token format ('tkn_…') and the maximum array size (10 tokens per call), giving the agent enough to construct valid input.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('Strac vault tokens back to their original values'), and even identifies the token format ('tkn_…'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool redact_text, which presumably transforms rather than reveals data.

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 gives explicit conditions for use: only when the caller is authorised to see raw sensitive data, and requires an IP-allowlisted server-to-server key in live mode. It doesn't explicitly mention when to use redact_text instead, but the authorization condition serves as a strong gate.

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