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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well for the side effects: a new OTP is issued, the 10-minute TTL resets, and the attempt counter is cleared. It omits auth requirements, rate limiting, and error behavior, but discloses the important mutation consequences that an agent could not otherwise predict.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; scope is front-loaded in the first sentence and side effects follow. 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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, preconditions, and mutation side effects adequately. Remaining gaps are error handling and rate-limit behavior, which are secondary for an OTP resend.

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% for the single required transferId, so the description must compensate. It identifies the target implicitly as the caller's own pending transfer request, which gives context, but never explains that transferId is the transfer UUID or what happens with an invalid/past transfer.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Resend the transfer OTP') plus a scope constraint ('recipient's own pending request only'), which distinguishes it from the companion domain_transfer_create_code flow. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, but an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 states a precondition — the caller must be the recipient of the pending transfer request — which gives implied usage context. However, it never states when an agent should resend versus create a fresh code or confirm, so routing between the domain_transfer_* siblings is left to inference.

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