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

The description discloses that the code is sent via email and that it is a prerequisite, but it does not mention response format, delivery time, potential errors, or rate limits. With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden, and while it gives some context, it lacks depth regarding side effects and failure modes.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and promptly stating the prerequisite role. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description is adequate for understanding its role as an authentication prerequisite, but it does not specify what the agent should expect after the request (e.g., a success indicator or whether a new code invalidates previous ones). This is a minor gap in completeness.

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 100%, with the parameter 'loginEmail' already described as 'Email address to receive the one-time code.' The description adds little beyond the schema, mentioning 'via email' but not providing additional semantic detail about the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'Request' and a clear resource 'one-time authentication code sent via email.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools (checkOptimization, emailResults, startOptimization) by focusing on authentication rather than optimization or results.

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 phrase 'This code is required for all other operations' provides clear context that this tool must be used before other operations, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. This is clear context without exclusions, fitting a score of 4.

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