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

The description goes far beyond the annotations, which only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. It discloses that the tool waits up to 45 seconds, returns as soon as the user confirms, may return a waiting state requiring retry, moves keyless trial work into the account, and returns a one-time rek_ key plus a session value for later calls. This gives the agent a full behavioral model.

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 dense but every sentence carries actionable information: when to call, what to pass, what to expect, how to handle waiting, and what is returned. It is front-loaded with the core instruction and contains no filler or redundant phrases.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining return values (rek_ key shown once, session value) and the retry loop. It also clarifies the relationship with connect(email) and the trial_id flow. The tool's complexity is high because of the asynchronous wait and retry semantics, and the description covers all needed behaviors.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with clear descriptions, so coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that code should be omitted by default and that trial_id should be passed along, but it mostly restates what the schema already provides. It adds flow context rather than new parameter-level semantics.

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 finishes signing in as step 2 of 2, with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly anchors to connect(email), distinguishing it from the connect sibling and other workflow tools. The scope is unambiguous: verify a sign-in request either by waiting for email confirmation or by passing a six-digit code.

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 instructions: call it right after connect(email) with request_id and no code. It also explains the retry behavior ('if it returns waiting, call it again') and tells the agent not to ask the user to report the click, which prevents a common misuse. It even covers the alternative code path when the user reads the code.

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