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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds minimal context beyond stating that the code is bound to the original enrollment. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., error conditions, side effects) are disclosed. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with zero waste. Every word earns its place, clearly conveying the core action and a key constraint.

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?

Given the simplicity (3 required params, output schema exists), the description is adequate. It explains the tool's purpose and the binding to enrollment. No missing crucial information for an agent to decide to use it, though error handling is not discussed.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add new meaning beyond implying the code is emailed. Baseline 3 is correct as the schema carries the burden.

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 verb 'Submit' and the resource 'one-time code that the owner received by email.' It also specifies the binding to the original agent enrollment, distinguishing it from siblings like create_owner_email_verification (which starts the process) and get_owner_email_verification_status (which checks 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?

The description implies usage after the owner receives the code, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like get_owner_email_verification_status or revoke_owner_email_authorization. There is no mention of preconditions or when not to use it.

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