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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool returns a one-time key, that the key must be stored in the host secret store, and that subsequent connections must use it as a Bearer credential. This explains side effects and authentication requirements 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 a single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides the essential post-condition and credential-handling steps. 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 verification tool with an output schema and supporting annotations, the description covers the main flow well: what the tool completes, what to do with the result, and how to use it later. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit parameter semantics, but this does not make the tool uncallable.

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 explicitly map the two required parameters. It never states that requestId is the registration request identifier or that code is the emailed six-digit verification code; the agent must infer this from parameter names, the pattern, and the phrase 'email-required'.

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 states a specific action ('Complete an email-required agent registration') and clearly identifies the resource and flow being finished. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling register_agent_account by framing this as the completion step rather than the initial registration step.

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 gives clear context: this is the follow-up step after an email-required agent registration, where the agent has a requestId and a code. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context strongly implies the correct placement in the registration flow.

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