tokportal_reveal_account_credentials

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations' basic flags. It discloses irreversibility, account detachment, read-only transition, end of coverage, atomic commits, idempotency restrictions (rejection with specific error), and refund policy. It fully describes what gets destroyed/mutated despite no destructiveHint annotation, adding immense value.

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 long but densely packed with necessary detail. It front-loads the core action and pricing rule in the first sentence. While it could be slightly trimmed (e.g., the closing instruction on uncertain transport could be shorter), every sentence provides unique value for a high-stakes credential reveal operation.

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 sensitivity, complexity (pricing rules, cutover logic, atomic operations), and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers pre/post conditions, error scenarios (428, 409), idempotency handling, and post-operation state. The sibling tool list confirms no other tool duplicates this functionality.

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 already covers parameters fully (100% description coverage), so baseline is 3. However, the description adds critical context for both parameters: it explains the policy_version source (from error responses) and the acknowledge_support_forfeit meaning (confirmation of specific disclosure). This justifies a higher score as it clarifies complex required behavior.

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 begins with 'Reveal delivered account credentials', a specific verb+resource pair that exactly matches the tool name. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like tokportal_retrieve_account_verification_code and tokportal_get_account by focusing on credential reveal and its unique pricing/behavioral rules.

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 extensive when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It explicitly separates pre-cutoff vs post-cutoff accounts, explains pricing conditions, details the idempotency header prohibition, and advises on handling uncertain transport results. This is exceptionally detailed for usage context.

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