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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description adds the auth note that the channel context is resolved internally. It does not explain why the call is destructive, whether a code is dispatched to an external party, whether it expires, or what side effects/rate limits apply. The phrase 'ChannelOAuthId resolved internally' is also slightly at odds with channelOAuthId being an explicit required parameter, creating ambiguity rather than contradiction.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by the confirmation prerequisite and auth note. No filler, though the final sentence about the HGRApi header is dense and slightly unclear.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the two-parameter schema is fully documented. However, for a destructive, open-world mutation, the description omits the surrounding workflow (that this precedes hgr_send_noapi_code) and the real-world consequence of triggering a verification code.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented (confirmed as user-confirmed intent, channelOAuthId as returned by hgr_list_channels), so the baseline is 3. The description only adds the 'visible store' qualifier for channelOAuthId and restates the confirmed=true requirement already in the schema.

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 resource: 'Requests a No-API Server verification code for a visible store.' That distinguishes it from generic code tools, but it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like hgr_get_dashboard_requestcode or hgr_send_noapi_code, leaving the agent to guess which 'request code' path applies.

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?

Provides one prerequisite ('Requires confirmed=true') and implies the visible-store selection context, but gives no when/when-not guidance against the several sibling code tools (hgr_get_dashboard_requestcode, hgr_send_noapi_code, hgr_send_noapi_answer) or what to do after the code is issued. 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.