tokportal_retrieve_account_verification_code

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

The description extensively discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: the irreversible nature, policy determination logic, credit costs, response error codes (428, 409), idempotency rejection, and long-term account effects (read-only, detach, end of support). Annotations only state non-readOnly, non-idempotent; the description fills in critical details. Score 4 because it is very comprehensive but could briefly mention the response format.

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 very dense and contains important details, but it is quite long and lacks clear section breaks (e.g., between policy explanation, error handling, and idempotency note). Every sentence earns its place, but structuring would improve scannability. Score 3 for being content-rich but structurally dense.

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 complexity (nested required body, policy-based behavior, multiple error paths) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all key behavioral outcomes and error scenarios. Score 4 because a brief note on the expected success response content (e.g., verification code format) would be helpful.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the purpose of parameters in context of policy negotiation (e.g., policy_version used to detect stale quotes, acknowledge_support_forfeit acceptance). It also clarifies when body fields are required vs ignored. Score 4 because it enriches understanding well beyond schema.

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 tool retrieves the latest account verification code and distinguishes it from the similar sibling `tokportal_reveal_account_credentials` by explaining it is equivalent to revealing credentials. The specific verb 'retrieve' and resource 'latest account verification code' are well-defined.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance by detailing the two policy scenarios (pre-cutoff vs post-cutoff) and the associated credit costs and behaviors. It also explicitly instructs not to send Idempotency-Key, explaining consequences. This clearly differentiates from siblings and advises on when not to call.

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