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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that key rotation is not involved, the verification can be retried, and failure can be handled via account_use_key. It is consistent with the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint 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 compact, front-loads the core purpose, and each sentence adds distinct useful information: what the tool does, where to call it, and what to do if things fail.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers workflow positioning, retry behavior, and fallback alternatives. The main gap is parameter-level detail, but the overall invocation context is clear enough for an agent.

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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only implicitly explains 'code' as the emailed code. The 'email' parameter is not clarified at all, leaving important semantics unstated.

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 identifies the action as verifying an emailed code and specifies it is step 2 of 2 for reconnecting an existing org. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by describing the exact workflow position and purpose.

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 explicit usage guidance: call after account_signin_start, and if later org tools fail, retry account_signin_verify or use account_use_key. This directly helps an agent choose between alternatives and sequence calls.

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