tokportal_retrieve_account_verification_code

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

The description reveals critical behavioral traits: irreversible first-access event, account detachment, read-only state, policy-dependent pricing, and support termination. Annotations (destructiveHint=false) are not contradicted because the tool changes state but does not destroy data. The description adds significant value beyond 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 dense wall of text with no paragraph breaks or bullet points. While each sentence is informative, the lack of structure makes it difficult to parse quickly. It could be more concise by separating policy details, error conditions, and usage restrictions.

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's complexity (policy versioning, multiple HTTP statuses, irreversible side effects, idempotency restriction), the description covers most important aspects. It mentions the response contains a verification secret, but does not specify the exact response format (fields, structure). This is a minor gap, but overall it is quite 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context about HTTP error responses (428, 409) tied to the body parameters, and explains the effect of policy_version and acknowledge_support_forfeit, which goes beyond the schema.

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 'Retrieve latest account verification code' and explains the context of policy-based outcomes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'reveal_account_credentials', which could clarify when to use which tool.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, including policy conditions (428, 409), the idempotency-key restriction, and the irreversible nature of the event. It implies when not to use (e.g., for old accounts that don't require new policy version), but lacks explicit exclusions.

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