tokportal_list_account_bundles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which indicate safe, non-mutating behavior. The description does not contradict these. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination limits, rate constraints, or what 'delivered' means operationally. With strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate—the description adds little beyond the annotations.

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, short sentence with clear wording and no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. One could argue it is slightly under-specified (could elaborate on 'delivered'), but it earns its place without verbosity.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate sibling complexity (tokportal_list_bundles is a close alternative). The description does not clarify pagination behavior, expected return structure, or the meaning of bundle statuses. For a list operation that likely returns a paginated list, more contextual completeness is needed.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain the 'status' filter values or the relationship between 'id' and the account). Baseline 3 is correct given full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('list bundles') and the target resource ('delivered account'). Among siblings, tokportal_list_bundles exists but lacks the 'for a delivered account' constraint, helping differentiate this tool's scope. However, the term 'delivered account' is not defined, and the description does not specify what 'bundles' are in this context.

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 like tokportal_list_bundles (which likely lists all bundles without account filtering) or tokportal_get_bundle (for a single bundle). No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for the 'delivered account' concept are given, leaving an agent to guess the selection criteria.

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