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

Annotations provide no safety or idempotency hints, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the sequence dependency and the code channel, but it does not mention that the OTP may be single-use, that failed attempts could invalidate it, or that verification establishes an authenticated session.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the operation, the input, and the prerequisite with no filler or redundancy. Every word 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?

For a low-complexity tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description plus schema is sufficient for correct invocation. It states the prerequisite and what to submit; the only missing details are edge-case behaviors like failure handling, which are not critical here.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'code' is the OTP sent via email, but it adds little beyond what the schema already documents for the optional username parameter.

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 the specific verb 'Complete' tied to two-factor authentication and identifies the exact artifact being submitted (the OTP code). It clearly separates this from civify_login, which initiates authentication, and from other account-related sibling tools.

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 'after login' gives clear sequencing context, telling an agent this is the post-login 2FA step and implying civify_login should happen first. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is unambiguous enough.

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