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

Goes well past the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) by disclosing the success effect (trial ends, key can send Nods and spend), the failure threshold (five wrong tries closes the code), and the rate limits (10/hour, 20/day per key and account). These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before spending an attempt, and none contradict the annotation profile.

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?

Front-loads what the tool is, then layers success effect, lockout behavior, rate limits, and the alternative path in short declarative sentences. Every clause is actionable and none is filler.

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?

For a single-parameter verification call with annotations and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, side effects, failure conditions, throttle limits, and the alternative verification route. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 0% and the single parameter is only constrained by a ^\d{6}$ pattern, so the description must carry the meaning. It does by stating the code is six digits and comes from the NodNod email that the owner read, giving the agent the source and format; it stops short of saying anything about error shapes for a malformed code.

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 action (pass the six-digit code emailed to the owner) and frames it as 'the backup to the one-click link,' so the agent knows exactly which verification path this is. It also names the sibling paths (resend_owner_letter, get_account) that cover the other cases.

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 explicit when-to-use (owner read the code from the NodNod email), when-not (the owner pressed the link and get_account already shows is_verified true), and the fallback after lockout (call resend_owner_letter). Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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