tokportal_list_account_bundles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as whether it returns paginated results or requires authentication. With complete annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict and adds minimal additional context.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without extraneous detail. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. However, it could be slightly more informative without adding much length, such as noting pagination or required account ID.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and complete annotation coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does but omits details about what the response contains (e.g., list of bundle names/IDs), how pagination works, or that the account must be delivered first. The sibling list is large, and more explicit differentiation would improve completeness.

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 4 parameters including their types, defaults, and format (e.g., UUID for 'id'). The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining that 'status' might filter by specific bundle statuses. The baseline of 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 'List bundles for a delivered account' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('bundles for a delivered account'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tokportal_list_bundles by implying a scope limited to a specific delivered account, though it could be more explicit about the distinction.

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, such as tokportal_list_bundles (which may list all bundles). The input schema indicates 'id' is required and it's a delivered account, but there is no explicit statement about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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