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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the prerequisite and that '2FA is not enabled until such time as...' but the sentence is truncated, leaving the exact behavior unclear. It does not disclose side effects, failure modes, or permission requirements beyond the token.

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 first sentence is repeated verbatim, and the 2FA note is cut off mid-sentence ('/wallet/google_'). This redundancy and incompleteness indicate poor editing and 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 description covers purpose, prerequisite, parameter semantics, and return type ('a json object'), and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return fields. However, the truncated 2FA note and absence of success/failure behavior details leave gaps for a 4-parameter authentication tool.

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?

All four parameters (api_key, token, wallet_fk, otp) are described in the @param block with meaningful context (e.g., 'The wallet_api_token provided by /access/login'). This compensates for the schema's 0% property description coverage and adds value beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with 'Verifies an OTP against the customer's Google Authenticator App', providing a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wallet_google_auth_list (listing) and wallet_verify (wallet verification).

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 instruction that 'The wallet must be configured to generate OTPs, see /wallet/google_auth_generate' implies a prerequisite, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when this tool is preferred over others. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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