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

Goes well past the annotations (which only say it is non-read-only, non-destructive and idempotent) by disclosing the required scope (resources:write), the need for an approved workspace key, the logging of every generation, a hard rate limit of 30 per workspace per minute, and a secrecy constraint on printing codes. It even explains the return shape, including nextCode appearing only when fewer than five seconds remain.

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?

Six tight sentences with no filler, ordered from what it does, to authorization, to return values, to operational limits. The most decision-critical constraint (scope of permitted use) is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the conditional nextCode. Authorization, rate limits, audit logging, and handling constraints are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as a resource UUID, so the bar is a baseline 3. The description adds genuine meaning by identifying which kind of resource that UUID must reference — a stored TOTP authenticator in the workspace — which matters in a workspace with many resource types.

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 ("Generate a code from a stored TOTP authenticator") and immediately scopes it to accounts the human asked the agent to create or operate. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like list_authenticators or add_authenticator, which list or create authenticators rather than producing a live code.

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?

Gives strong when-to-use framing (only for accounts the human asked you to create or operate) and explicit when-not conditions (viewers and read-only keys cannot generate codes; an approved workspace key is required). It does not name an alternative route when the condition fails, so it stops short of the top band.

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