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

The description discloses that the tool verifies the code and 'marks this connection/account + email as verified', and that subsequent publish_need calls with the same email no longer request the code. This goes beyond the minimal annotations (all false) by revealing the mutation and its future impact. It does not contradict annotations; it appropriately indicates a state change.

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 well-structured with clear headers (WHEN TO CALL, WHAT IT DOES, AFTER CALLING) and is concise. It front-loads the purpose and provides exactly the needed context without redundancy or unnecessary fluff.

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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the purpose, trigger condition, effect, and follow-up step. It includes an important behavioral consequence (no further code requests) that an agent must know. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters having descriptive comments. The description repeats the code's origin ('6-digit code the user got in their inbox') and email's origin ('the contact email the user gave you in publish_need'), but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Confirm the contact email by entering the 6-digit code the user got in their inbox'. It names the specific action (confirm), the resource (contact email), and the method (6-digit code). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by tying to publish_need's error_code, making it uniquely identifiable.

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 provides a 'WHEN TO CALL' section, stating the exact precondition: 'publish_need returned error_code = "NEEDS_EMAIL_VERIFICATION", AND the user told you the 6-digit code.' It also instructs to retry publish_need afterward, giving clear sequential usage guidance.

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