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

The description provides meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the token is valid for ~30 minutes, re-verifying the same email issues a fresh token, and that token still reaches the same drafts. This discloses the token lifecycle and the effect of repeated verification without contradicting 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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core operation and token output are front-loaded, followed by a useful note about re-verification. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the required inputs, the output token, its validity period, and its downstream dependency for draft tools. An agent can understand how and when to call this tool correctly.

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%, with clear descriptions for both 'code' and 'email'. The tool description restates the 6-digit nature of the code but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 clearly states the tool verifies a 6-digit email code and returns a verificationToken valid for about 30 minutes. It names the specific resource (email code) and the output (verificationToken), and the sibling request_email_otp is implicitly distinguished as the complementary sending action.

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 explains that the draft tools require the verificationToken, giving clear context for when this tool should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is sufficient for an agent to infer the appropriate timing.

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