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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key side effect: opening a short-lived booking session. However, it omits details like failure behavior, whether the OTP is consumed, session duration, or security requirements, which would be valuable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys when to use the tool and what it accomplishes. Every word earns its place; no redundant or filler content.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It states the outcome (opening a short-lived session) but does not mention what the agent receives in response or any error/edge-case behavior, leaving room for improved 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 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain either parameter. It indirectly references challenge_id via 'OTP challenge' and otp_code via 'one-time passcode,' but lacks direct semantics or format details beyond the schema constraints.

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 a one-time passcode and opens a short-lived booking session, with a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('customer OTP'). It also distinguishes from siblings like verify_magic_link_token and start_customer_verification by focusing on OTP verification after a challenge.

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 'Use after sending an OTP challenge,' providing clear temporal context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient to differentiate from related tools.

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