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

Annotations already flag openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a real email is sent, the code is 6 digits, and sending is rate-limited per request. It does not say what happens when the limit is hit or whether previously issued codes are invalidated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the constraint. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 side-effecting action with no output schema, the description covers the action, the precondition, and the rate limit. The remaining gaps (limit-exceeded behavior, code invalidation, delivery failures) are minor but real.

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 100% and the single requestId parameter is already documented as coming from request_supplier_listing, so the schema does the work. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter (no format, no behavior on invalid or expired ids).

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 and resource: it emails a fresh 6-digit code for a pending verification request. The phrase 'still waiting for verification' scopes it apart from the initial request_supplier_listing and from verify_supplier_listing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'For a request that is still waiting for verification' gives a clear precondition for when this tool is the right call, implicitly excluding already-verified or not-yet-created requests. It stops short of naming the alternative tools to use in those other cases.

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