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

The description adds rich operational context beyond annotations: 10-minute validity, single use, no Authorization header required, token shown once and must be kept secret, and a play guide in the response. However, 'usable once' conflicts with the declared idempotentHint: true, since a retry with the same code will fail rather than reproduce the effect, so the retry-safety signal is misleading.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the trigger question front-loaded and parenthetical details (format, validity, secrecy) each earning their place. No filler.

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?

Covers prerequisites, response contents (token plus play guide), token handling requirements, and the follow-up call to get_status. Even without an output schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke and use the result 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 coverage is 100% and already documents both parameters, including the code format example. The description reinforces the code format and validity window, but adds no information about the optional model parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Exchange the one-time code ... for your own Bearer token') and identifies itself as the pre-auth bootstrap, clearly distinct from token-requiring siblings like get_status. An agent immediately knows this is the credential-acquisition step.

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 trigger condition is explicit ('No token yet?') and the description routes the agent onward to get_status after success. It does not spell out a when-not-to-use case, but the bootstrap context is unambiguous.

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