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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'login by code' and adds no details about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or response characteristics. This is a tautological restatement of the tool's purpose without any behavioral insight.

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?

While the description is extremely short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It includes redundant metadata ('Group: other', 'Billing per call: 1 Credits') that is not helpful for tool invocation, and it omits critical functional details. The structure does not prioritize useful information.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and any parameter explanations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the authentication flow, the role of the code, or what the user should expect. For a tool with these gaps, the description fails to provide the necessary context.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (code, apiKey, proxyUrl, resFormat). It fails to add any meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving their roles entirely unexplained.

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 'login by code' indicates the action (login) and the resource (a code), but it is vague and does not explicitly state that it is the 2FA variant, nor does it distinguish it from sibling login tools like get_base_apitools_login or loginPost. The phrase 'by code' is ambiguous without further context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative login methods. The description provides no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, so the agent receives no help in selecting the appropriate tool.

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