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

With no annotations, the description does useful work by naming the returned tokens and the default mandate scope ('*' = all 20 services), plus the sandbox safety constraint. It omits side effects, token expiry/lifetime, error/retry behavior, and whether verification is idempotent, which matters for a verification step an agent may retry.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the returns, then the sandbox warning. No filler, though the return-value sentence is slightly dense.

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 7-parameter verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain capability/jurisdiction/session_token semantics. It compensates only for return values and the sandbox constraint, leaving most invocation-critical parameters undocumented.

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 coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, and the description only touches 'code' and 'email'. agent_name, capability, service_id, jurisdiction, and session_token are entirely unexplained — notably the quote_only vs quote_and_bind enum, which materially changes what the agent is authorized to do.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: verify the 6-digit email code issued by moltbound_human_sim_start. It explicitly names the sibling that precedes it and outlines what comes back (session_token, mandate_id, human_sim_token). It doesn't distinguish itself from moltbound_human_sim_approve, but the pairing with the start tool is clear.

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?

Implies the sequence by referencing moltbound_human_sim_start as the source of the code, and adds a sandbox usage constraint (fictitious data only). It never states when to use this versus the other human_sim/approval siblings or what to do on failure.

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