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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key privacy behavior: the reply is identical regardless of whether the pair matches, which prevents information leakage. It also advises not to expose the code in chat. It could mention what happens if email isn't verified, but the disclosed behavior is significant.

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 that front-load the primary action, then explain the behavioral nuance and the next step. Every sentence contributes essential information: purpose, privacy behavior, and follow-up action. 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?

For a low-complexity tool with two simple string parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, key behavioral aspect, and the recommended next step. It doesn't describe error handling or the exact response format, but these are minor for a recovery code request. The security instruction adds valuable context.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that the email must be verified and that the handle/email pair is used together. However, it doesn't provide details on the expected format, constraints, or examples beyond the schema's basic string type. Some additional semantic explanation would be beneficial.

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 action: 'Ask for a recovery code by handle and verified email.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool confirm_recovery by explicitly indicating the next step. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from other tools.

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 provides clear usage guidance: it tells the agent to call confirm_recovery with the code and includes a security instruction not to put the code in chat. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the workflow and alternatives are implied through the next-step instruction.

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