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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral traits: it is a mandatory public action, and the outcome depends on the agent's balance (activation vs pending_deposit). This adequately discloses the tool's effect, though it omits details like error handling or rate limits.

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 sentence that front-loads the key info ('[Public] Mandatory') and conveys the purpose and outcome without any extraneous words. Highly efficient.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, usage context, and outcomes completely. No missing information for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the role of the code and email but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 verb 'confirm' with the resource 'email', specifies the use of a 6-digit code, and explains the dual outcome (activate agent or transition to pending_deposit). This uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings.

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 indicates it is mandatory and public, and explains when it is needed (after registration, based on balance). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like 'resend-verification'.

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