tokportal_can_refresh_account_analytics

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already convey safety. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the title—e.g., it doesn't explain what 'availability' means (returns a boolean? error if not available?), what gets checked (e.g., rate limits, data freshness), or the response format. With strong annotations, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to add meaningful transparency.

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 extremely short (two words plus article), which is concise but lacks substance. Every sentence should earn its place, but here it barely provides information, resulting in under-specification rather than efficient clarity.

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 large sibling list (especially the closely related 'tokportal_refresh_analytics_account'), the description should clarify the tool's role as a non-mutating query for availability. Without output schema or additional context, an agent cannot distinguish this from other analytics reads or know what action to take based on the result, leaving the description incomplete.

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% and there is only 1 parameter ('id' as a uuid with description 'Saved account ID.'). The description does not add further semantics about this parameter (e.g., 'The ID of the account to check for refresh availability'), but since the schema already fully documents it, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Check analytics refresh availability,' which gives a clear verb ('check') and resource ('analytics refresh availability'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'tokportal_refresh_analytics_account' (which presumably triggers a refresh) or other analytics-adjacent tools, lacking specificity about what 'availability' entails (e.g., whether a refresh is currently allowed or whether data is ready).

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 like 'tokportal_refresh_analytics_account' or 'tokportal_get_account_analytics.' It does not state that this is a precondition check (e.g., 'call this before refresh_analytics_account'), nor does it mention any context like prerequisites (e.g., account must exist).

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