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

Annotations already cover safety (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the token is not an OAuth token or API key and cannot access research/workspace data, and that the account is activated only 'when needed'. This clarifies side effects and token limitations without contradicting any annotation.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads usage context and primary function; the second adds a necessary security/behavioral note. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the input context, the action, the return value (short-lived token), and the token's limitations. It could mention error cases (e.g., invalid/expired code) but this is a minor gap given the simple schema and available annotations.

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 both parameters. The description's mention of 'six-digit code' and 'same normalized account email' reinforces but does not extend the schema's meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource: it verifies email control, activates the free account, and returns a token. It explicitly references start_email_signup as the predecessor, distinguishing it from checkout/status tools and connect_congressmcp_account. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 gives explicit sequencing ('after start_email_signup') and the trigger condition ('when the user provides the six-digit code'). It also implies the token is for subsequent checkout/status calls, but does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions.

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