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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, not read-only), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value by disclosing the full return payload an agent will need before calling make_wish. It does not say what happens when the code is invalid or expired, nor whether the token has a lifetime, which are meaningful gaps for an auth step.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the return values, with no filler. The return-value list is dense but every item is something the agent needs to know. Minor inefficiency in listing outputs narratively rather than structurally.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly absorbs the responsibility of describing what comes back, and annotations handle the safety semantics. For a three-parameter verification tool the coverage is nearly sufficient; the unexplained 'phone' parameter and the absence of any error/expiry behavior are the remaining gaps.

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 carries the burden and it only partially succeeds: it explains 'code' (the code the person received, and to pass it verbatim) and 'invite_code' (pass it when someone invited them). The required 'phone' parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 concrete action (check the code the person received) and enumerates what comes back, including the wish_token, founding number, existing wishes, queue position and invite link. That makes the tool's role as an identity/verification step clear, and it names make_wish and my_wishes as downstream consumers. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like start_three_wishes, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: by saying it returns a wish_token for make_wish and my_wishes, an agent can infer this must be called first. The only explicit guidance is about argument fidelity ('use exactly the code they give you') and the conditional invite path. There are no stated preconditions, failure handling, or when-not-to-use conditions.

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