tokportal_get_account_edit_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds only the word 'active', which hints at filtering behavior but does not explain what happens if no active request exists, whether the request is mutable, or any other behavioral detail beyond the 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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified—it lacks necessary context that would make the sentence more valuable. It earns its place as a purpose statement, but does not cover other essential aspects.

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 required parameter, no output schema, annotations present), but the description fails to explain what an 'account edit request' is, what 'active' means, or what the return value contains. Without an output schema, the agent has no insight into the structure or content of the response.

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% (the lone parameter 'id' is described as 'Saved account ID.'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning about this parameter, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 'Get active account edit request' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('active account edit request'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tokportal_create_account_edit_request that perform different operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tokportal_get_account, tokportal_get_bundle). There is no mention of prerequisites, what constitutes an 'active' request, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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