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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: codes expire in 10 minutes, attempts are limited, and success returns a short-lived identity token. This meaningfully informs the agent about constraints and side effects 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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each clause adds operational value: inputs, output, downstream usage, expiry, and attempt limits.

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 a full schema and no output schema, the description fully covers the lifecycle: where the inputs come from, what the success output is, how to use that output, and important constraints (expiry, attempt limits).

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 schema already covers 100% of parameter descriptions ('the 6-digit code the customer received by email' and 'from vivid_identity_start'). The description restates this functionally but does not add new parameter-specific meaning 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 the action ('Complete email verification'), specifies the required inputs (verificationId and 6-digit code), and distinguishes itself from the sibling vivid_identity_start by describing the handoff to vivid_reorder / vivid_order_status.

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?

It explicitly says to pass the verificationId from vivid_identity_start, and explicitly names the downstream tools (vivid_reorder / vivid_order_status) that should receive the resulting token, providing clear when-to-use and alternative context.

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