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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses meaningful side effects: with a correct code, a request goes to Dispolà and may trigger a merchant call, or limits become active and a mandate key is returned. It also states that a wrong code is refused. It does not discuss retry limits, code expiration, or detailed failure behavior, which keeps it short of fully comprehensive.

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 short and front-loads the verification purpose and consequences. The French and English versions duplicate the same content, which is useful for bilingual readers but not maximally concise for an agent.

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 confirmation tool with no output schema, it covers the prerequisite tools, the success side effects, the returned mandate key, and rejection of a wrong code. It could say more about error responses or attempt limits, but the core information needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates that the code is 6 digits and the reference comes from earlier tools, but it adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action (verify a 6-digit texted code) and its two possible outcomes: sending a request to Dispolà or activating limits and returning a mandate key. It also differentiates the tool from prerequisites by naming envoyer_code and proposer_limites, so an agent can tell where this fits in the flow.

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 clearly says to use this after envoyer_code or proposer_limites, which establishes the prerequisite context. It also states that a wrong code is rejected, but it does not name alternatives or explicitly cover when not to use it beyond that failure case.

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