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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that no authentication is required, that the code is the same token as the email link and can be relayed, that success transitions the account to ACTIVE and unlocks billable actions, and how to handle an expired code. This is strong behavioral context, though it does not cover error cases like invalid codes or already-verified accounts.

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 compact and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose before adding workflow context, behavior, failure recovery, and parameter guidance. Each sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the onboarding step, authentication expectations, the effect of success, and the expired-code recovery path. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: accountId is identified as coming from createAccount, and code is identified as the verification email code that is the same token as the email link. This gives both parameters meaningful provenance and practical meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Verify'), a specific resource ('a newly created OSIR account'), and the mechanism ('code from the verification email'). It also positions this as 'step 2 of onboarding', clearly distinguishing it from related account-creation and authentication tools in the sibling list.

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 explicit when-to-use context: it is step 2 of onboarding and requires no authentication. It also provides a clear recovery path, instructing the caller to use createAccount again with the same email if the code has expired, which is an explicit pointer to an alternative tool.

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