tokportal_get_bundle

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false) already declare the tool as a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context—no mention of caching, response format, permissions, or side effects. Since annotations carry the behavioral burden here, a 3 is appropriate as the description neither adds nor contradicts.

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 extremely short at three words ('Get a bundle'). While this is concise, it borders on under-specification. However, for a simple lookup tool with full annotation coverage and a single parameter, there is no fluff or wasted text.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 required param, no enums, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The agent can infer that providing a bundle ID returns bundle data, but complete absence of info about the return value shape or what constitutes a 'bundle' (vs bundle account, bundle video, etc.) leaves moderate ambiguity among the 80+ sibling tools.

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%—the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter with type, format (uuid), and description 'Bundle ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 a bundle' uses a generic verb and resource, but among 80+ sibling tools there are many that operate on bundles (create, update, publish, unpublish, reset, finalize, get_bundle_account, get_bundle_publish_readiness, etc.). The description does not distinguish 'get a bundle' from these other bundle-related tools, providing no specificity about what makes this tool unique.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_bundle_account, get_bundle_publish_readiness, or list_bundles. The name suggests retrieving a single bundle by ID, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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