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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real context beyond them: the otp_invalid failure mode with attempts_remaining, the downstream consequence of success (sample visibility or order confirmation link), and the fact that results arrive by email. It doesn't explain what idempotency_key protects against, which matters for a mutation.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The middle sentence is dense with domain shorthand ("the sample becomes visible", "at quote time") that costs some parseability but carries genuine information.

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?

Behavior is described well, but with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, an agent still cannot construct a valid call without guessing at request_capability and idempotency_key. For a four-required-parameter mutation, the definition should document those inputs.

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 0% across four required parameters, so the description carries the full burden — and it only indirectly covers otp ("the code the person read"). request_id, request_capability, and idempotency_key are completely unexplained in both schema and description; an agent has no way to know what request_capability is.

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?

A specific verb and resource: submit the emailed one-time code to complete verification. It clearly positions the tool as the second half of the email-verification flow, distinct from start_email_verification, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

"Submit the code the person read from their email" implies the precondition that a code must already exist, but the prerequisite step (start_email_verification) is left to inference. The one explicit routing hint — use get_request later rather than polling — points at a different tool, not at when to choose this one over alternatives.

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