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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false). The description compensates by disclosing key behavioral aspects: it sends a code via email, claims the account on verification, merges anonymous needs into the new identity, and auto-links future emails. This goes beyond the generic 'claim' verb and gives the agent a concrete understanding of side effects and the authentication flow.

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 front-loaded: 'two-step' is stated first, followed by step-by-step examples. It avoids redundancy and each sentence adds necessary information. The structure is easy to parse for an agent deciding whether and how to call the tool.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the full flow and consequences of claiming, including the merge and auto-link behavior. It covers the essential operational context for an agent to execute correctly. It does not mention error conditions or timeouts, but given the focus on usage, it is adequately complete for a two-step operation.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage (only `code` has a description), the description compensates by explaining the meaning and role of each parameter through examples for both steps. It clarifies that `step` selects the phase, `email` identifies the user, and `code` is required only for verification. This adds value beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on validation patterns or edge cases.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: claiming a persistent pseudonymous account via email, using a two-step process. It is distinct from siblings like create_invite_link or manage_need, as it focuses on identity claim and merge, not on invites or needs.

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 explicitly outlines the two-step usage sequence with concrete example objects for each step (send_code and verify_code). It indicates the tool is for claiming an account but does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools. It provides clear enough context for when to use it, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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