tokportal_list_account_bans

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

The tool has strong annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false) which already convey safety. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the polling mechanism, lifecycle coverage, and the important distinction that only validated bans are included. No contradiction with 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 dense but concise, packing substantial information into a few sentences. It front-loads the main purpose, then provides lifecycle details, webhook counterpart, filtering caveat, and polling advice—all without wasted words.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and zero required parameters, the description covers the critical behavioral aspects (lifecycle, polling, validation scope). It lacks explicit mention of return format (e.g., pagination metadata), but for a list endpoint with a page/per_page schema, this is a minor gap. The description is largely complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the 'since' parameter as a polling watermark, enumerating the lifecycle statuses with their meanings, and describing the resolution filter options with context. This extra guidance justifies above the baseline.

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 lists ban reports and appeals, covering the full lifecycle with explicit statuses and resolution codes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying its domain (ban reports, not bundles, accounts, videos, etc.) and by noting it is the REST counterpart of specific webhook events.

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 clear guidance on when to poll with the 'since' parameter to pick up updates, and explicitly states that only staff/CM-validated bans appear, while internal health scan detections are never listed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools for related tasks.

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