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

With annotations only covering read-only, open-world, non-idempotent and non-destructive status, the description adds real behavior: it sends an SMS code, and the number's country determines the format. It does not state whether calling again resends or invalidates a code, what the expiry is, or whether the call returns anything that verify_wisher needs. These are meaningful omissions but not contradictions.

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 short sentences: the action first, the phone-format caveat second, and the required follow-up third. Every sentence carries information the agent needs, and nothing is repeated.

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, non-destructive trigger tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the input nuance, and the following step. The remaining gap is the return value: it does not say whether a reference or session identifier comes back, which an agent might expect to pass to verify_wisher.

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 0% and the single parameter is a bare string, but the description compensates by explaining that the phone can be from any country and needs a country code outside Nigeria. That covering of the only parameter's format and scope goes beyond the schema. It does not show an example format, so it stops short of a 5.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it begins the wishes flow and sends a 6-digit verification code to the member's phone. It clearly differs from sibling verify_wisher, which it names as the next step, but the phrase 'Begin a founding member's wishes' is slightly abstract until the second sentence gives the concrete action.

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 clearly gives the workflow: start here, get the code from the user, then call verify_wisher. It does not explicitly rule out other wish tools such as make_wish or add_wishes, and it does not say when not to use it, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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