tokportal_get_account_edit_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds the 'active' filter, which is a behavioral constraint beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose what happens if no active request exists or describe the response format, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 sentence of five words, extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place with no wasted information.

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 is simple (one parameter, read-only, no output schema). The description is minimal: it states the action and resource but does not explain what an 'edit request' is or what the return value looks like. While the parameter description clarifies that 'id' is the account ID, the overall description could be more complete by explicitly linking the account ID to the request retrieval.

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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'id' described as 'Saved account ID.' The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('active account edit request'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'create_account_edit_request'. It is not a tautology of the name because it adds the qualifier 'active', clarifying the scope.

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 (e.g., when to use create_account_edit_request instead, or what to do if no active request exists). With many sibling tools, the lack of explicit usage context is a significant gap.

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