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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the submission action but omits side effects, expiration behavior, invalid-code handling, and what successful confirmation means, leaving significant gaps for a verification mutation tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately tells the agent the action and the required input.

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 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain verification_id, expected success or failure outcomes, or the relationship to start_email_verification, leaving the agent without key context.

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 should compensate. It clarifies that 'code' is the 6-digit code from the email, but it provides no explanation of 'verification_id', where to obtain it, or how the two parameters relate.

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: submit the 6-digit code from the verification email. This clearly identifies the action as completing email verification, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like start_email_verification or get_verification.

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 phrase 'from the verification email' implies the tool should be used after receiving a verification email, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools such as start_email_verification.

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