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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the authorization requirement (admin only), the side effect (number is added to the line's test numbers), and the exact failure mode (VERIFICATION_FAILED on a wrong or expired code). It omits idempotency/retry semantics and what a success response contains, but the mutation and error profile are unusually well covered.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope ('admin only') and the dependency before the failure case. Slightly terse jargon ('SAGOT number lines') costs a point but nothing is wasted.

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 4-required-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the workflow, prerequisite, and error outcome well, but leaves the two UUID parameters (id, workspaceId) unexplained and gives no signal about the success result. Adequate but with clear gaps for the agent to guess at.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps 'code' (the code sent by verifyNumber) and 'number' (the number added to test numbers), but says nothing about 'id' or 'workspaceId', leaving the ambiguity between a line id and the phone number unresolved.

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?

States a specific action (check the verification code, add the number to the line's test numbers) on a specific resource (SAGOT number lines), and explicitly names the sibling lines.verifyNumber as the tool that produced the code. An agent can distinguish this from lines_verifyNumber, lines_test, and lines_update without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition ('the code sent by lines.verifyNumber') and an admin-only restriction, plus a recovery path ('send a new one') when the code fails. It does not state what to do if the line has no pending verification, but the when-to-use context is explicit and actionable.

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