tokportal_reveal_account_credentials

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

The description explicitly states that revealing credentials is irreversible, permanently detaches the account, makes it read-only, and ends coverage—clear destructive side effects. However, the annotation destructiveHint: false contradicts this. According to instructions, any contradiction yields a score of 1. The description adds some behavioral context (atomicity, idempotency restrictions) but the core contradiction overrides.

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 block of dense text exceeding 300 words. While it contains valuable information, it is not concisely structured for quick agent consumption. The first sentence states purpose, but the rest is a legal-like wall of policy details. Bullet points or sections would vastly improve readability and efficiency.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers return format (credentials in response, not stored), error codes (400, 409, 428), idempotency rules, pricing, and side effects in detail. It is comprehensive for a high-complexity tool, though the structure hinders quick comprehension. It virtually covers all necessary contextual information.

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 value beyond the schema by explaining the implications of policy_version (missing returns 428, stale returns 409 with new quote) and clarifying that acknowledge_support_forfeit is ignored after first reveal. This enriches the agent's understanding of parameter 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 clearly states 'Reveal delivered account credentials' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tokportal_retrieve_account_verification_code by focusing on full account credentials rather than just verification codes, though it does not explicitly contrast itself. The purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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 detail on when the tool can be used (first access vs. repeated access, cutoff dates, pricing tiers) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., needing a saved account ID) and does not mention when not to use it. The context of when to invoke the tool is implied but not directly addressed.

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