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

The description discloses the critical side effect: 'revokes ALL previous keys,' which goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying exactly what is destroyed. It also states the positive outcome of issuing a fresh key. This adds concrete behavioral context above the structured annotations.

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 sentence of about 25 words that packs the step, action, and consequences into a front-loaded structure with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, step context, and side effects, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, it leaves some details implicit, such as the origin of the code and explicit sequencing with account_recover_start, so it is not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter documentation, but it does not. It only loosely implies that 'code' is a verification code from 'verify the code' and leaves 'email' entirely to inference. It does not explain where the code comes from, its format, or that email must be the account email.

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's purpose: verifying a code as step 2 of a lost API key recovery process. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by specifying it issues a fresh key and revokes all previous keys, and the 'Lost API key (step 2 of 2)' prefix unambiguously places it in the recovery flow.

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 clear contextual guidance by identifying this as step 2 of 2 in a lost-key recovery flow, letting an agent infer it should follow account_recover_start. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the loss/recovery framing strongly distinguishes it from sign-in verification siblings.

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