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

Annotations mark it non-readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds critical mechanics beyond that: the site is processed ONLY after the owner opens the email and types the code, the tool returns a short user_code, and the agent must show it and poll. This is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Dense but front-loaded and waste-free: core action, trigger condition, args, then the immediate next step. Every sentence carries operational 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-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the entire runbook: what it does, what it returns, the condition for processing, and the required polling. Nothing needed to call and follow up correctly is missing.

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 0%, so both params are undocumented structurally. The description clarifies that email is the owner's email and park_ref is the parked upload reference, which compensates somewhat. However, it does not specify formats or constraints, so a baseline 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?

States a specific action and outcome: links a parked upload to an owner's email, sends approval email, returns a short user_code. Distinguishes itself from login/claim siblings by describing the email-approval flow. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the workflow is clear.

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?

Implies when to use: after parking an upload, and directs the agent to show the owner the code and then poll yetty_claim_status every ~30s. This names a sibling and the timing condition. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the workflow context is strong.

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