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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the internal validate-phone → validate-OTP → refresh-token pipeline, which signals a token/session side effect. It also rules out an SMS send, preventing wrong expectations. It omits failure modes, permissions, and rate-limit behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the primary action first, followed by a compact parenthetical flow and a single scoping exclusion. Every clause earns its place, and no sentence is wasted.

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 multi-step auth tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what happens during the call and that no new SMS is sent. It does not state what is returned (e.g., token/session) or failure behavior, which leaves a small gap for an agent handling the response.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the phone/OTP pairing and country code. The description adds only the high-level validation sequence and no syntax or format details, so the 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 outcome ('Complete ChowDeck login with SMS code') and enumerates the internal sequence (validate phone → validate OTP → refresh token). The clause 'Does not send a new SMS' also distinguishes it from the sibling request_login_otp, so an agent can route between them without reading either schema.

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 sequence implies this is the second step after requesting an OTP, and 'Does not send a new SMS' tells the agent when not to use it (use request_login_otp instead). It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or stating prerequisites like OTP expiry, but the context is clear.

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