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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing code lifetime (15 minutes), lockout behavior after 5 wrong attempts, and the post-success state change (enters the Reevol review queue). These are non-obvious operational facts an agent cannot derive from the schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the sequencing and inputs, then constraints, then outcome. Every clause carries actionable information.

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?

Covers prerequisites, input origins, failure/retry path, and the resulting state change; with no output schema, that outcome sentence is exactly what is needed to interpret success.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by stating the provenance of requestId and that the code is 6-digit from email. Minor tension: it calls the code "6-digit" while the schema permits 6–12 characters, but this does not impede calling.

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?

Names the specific operation and its position in a workflow ("Second step of request_supplier_listing"), stating exactly what inputs are required. It clearly distinguishes itself from resend_supplier_listing_code and request_supplier_listing.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it (after request_supplier_listing, using its requestId plus the emailed code) and names the alternative for the failure case ("call resend_supplier_listing_code for a new one"). No inference required.

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