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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the returned token's scope, the tools it enables, and the upgrade path via auth_check_payment. It does not elaborate on why the operation is marked destructive (e.g., consuming the OTP), but the annotation already conveys the safety concern, so the description adds meaningful context without contradicting the annotation.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: the action and result, the prerequisite, and the follow-up action. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the output schema and the clear workflow, the description is complete: it explains the token scope, the required precursor, and the next step for full access. It is well-integrated with the sibling tools and leaves no critical gaps for the agent to guess.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (code and session_id). The description adds extra meaning by stating that only session_id is needed and email is not, reinforcing the schema's session_id description and clarifying the login flow. It also reiterates the code format.

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 specific action (verify a 6-digit OTP), the input (code from email), and the outcome (a guest-scope bearer token for intake, consent, order, and checkout tools). It distinguishes itself from siblings like auth_resend_otp and auth_check_payment by focusing on verification and the exact scope of the returned token.

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 provides explicit usage context: it requires the session_id from auth_start, clarifies that email is not needed, and tells the agent to call auth_check_payment after checkout/payment to upgrade the token scope. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names a relevant alternative tool.

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