tokportal_get_account_edit_request

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the word 'active', which qualifies the state of the edit request being retrieved. However, it does not disclose what happens if no active request exists (e.g., returns null or an error), nor any other behavioral details. With annotations carrying most of the burden, this is adequate but minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and resource. It contains no fluff or redundancies. A slight deduction for missing the distinction between 'account id' and 'edit request id', but overall very concise.

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?

Given that the tool has 1 simple parameter, full schema coverage, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the full edit request object) or how to interpret 'active'. This is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but not comprehensive.

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% (1 parameter of 1 described). The schema already documents 'id' with format uuid and description 'Saved account ID.' The tool description does not add further semantics about the parameter, but with full coverage, the baseline is 3. The description's brevity is acceptable, but it could have clarified that the 'id' refers to the account, not the edit request itself.

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 'Get active account edit request' uses a clear verb ('Get') and specific resource ('active account edit request'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tokportal_create_account_edit_request'. The purpose is unambiguous and focused.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Notably, the sibling list includes 'tokportal_create_account_edit_request' and 'tokportal_configure_bundle_account', but the description does not clarify that this tool should be used to retrieve an existing edit request rather than creating or configuring one. No exclusions or when-not conditions are stated.

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