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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the 15-minute token validity and the 6-digit code format, which go beyond the schema. However, it does not state what happens on an invalid code or whether the token is single-use.

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 concise, with the primary action stated first, followed by usage context and an Args list. Every sentence adds value and there is no unnecessary repetition.

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 description covers the trigger action, required parameters, token validity, and next steps with sibling tools, providing a complete workflow context. An output schema exists, so return value details are not required in the description.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section explains both order_id ('The order ID of a completed domain purchase') and code ('The 6-digit code from the verification email'), fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 tool verifies an email code and returns a transfer token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing request_transfer_code, get_transfer_code, and unlock_domain in the workflow.

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 explicitly says 'Call this after request_transfer_code and the user provides their code' and instructs passing the returned token to get_transfer_code or unlock_domain, giving clear sequencing and alternative next steps.

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