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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a hard five-attempt limit per application, which is exactly the kind of constraint an agent needs to avoid burning retries. It omits what happens on exhaustion (lockout? new application needed?) and what a success returns.

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 short fragments, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the attempt cap and the next step. Efficient, though the telegraphic "Next:" style is slightly cryptic and no sentence explains the outcome of a check.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining results, yet it says nothing about what a successful or failed check returns (e.g., a token or granted flag). It does cover the retry budget and flow position, which is the most critical part for a step in a multi-tool sequence.

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% and all three parameters are documented there (code as "the digits from the text", application_id/token sourced from partner_apply). The description's "texted code" merely restates the code field, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. 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?

"Checks the texted code" names a specific verb and resource, and with the title ("the code the person read to you") an agent can identify this as verifying a read-aloud SMS code. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling confirm_phone_code or from partner_send_code, which leaves the boundary to inference.

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?

"Next: partner_terms_link" gives a sequencing cue for what follows, implying this is invoked after a code is texted and before the terms step. There is no statement of when-not to use it, and no pointer to the sibling confirm_phone_code or partner_send_code, so usage is only implied.

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