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

The description transparently indicates the operation is an exchange that yields an API key, and instructs the user to display it. No contradictory side effects are mentioned, and the read-only nature (no data modification) is implied, though not explicitly labeled as safe.

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 concise—two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action and immediately follows with the expected follow-up action, making it efficient for the agent to parse.

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?

It covers the primary function and the required user-facing action, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It omits potential edge cases or error handling, but these are not essential for basic usage.

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 description clarifies that 'code' is the 6-digit emailed verification code and 'email' is the account email, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It does not elaborate on validation or error conditions, but the essential purpose of each parameter is conveyed.

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 action (exchange code for API key) and the intended outcome (show key as Bearer token). It is distinct from sibling tools like create_account or get_asset, focusing specifically on account verification.

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?

It provides guidance on when to use (after receiving the emailed code) and what to do with the result (configure as Bearer token). While it doesn't explicitly rule out alternative scenarios, the context is sufficient for typical use.

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