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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the side effect — a verified user gets attached to the session — which is not visible in annotations. It stops there, saying nothing about failure behavior for wrong/expired codes, code lifetime, or rate limits on attempts.

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?

A single tightly written sentence with the action first and the consequence second — zero filler. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it leaves too much unsaid, which is penalized under contextual completeness rather than here.

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?

This is a state-changing, session-mutating tool with three required parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema. The description never says where verificationId comes from, what the call returns, or what happens on an invalid code, leaving significant gaps for a tool in an auth flow.

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% across three required parameters, so the description must carry the meaning and largely does not. 'The code' and 'the session' loosely map to code and sessionToken, but verificationId is never explained (presumably returned by start_email_verification), and no format constraints are restated.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Confirm') with a specific object ('the code') and names the resulting effect ('attach a verified Globimmo user to the session'), which lets an agent distinguish it from start_email_verification or confirm_contact_exchange. It falls short of 5 only because it does not explicitly name the sibling it complements.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Confirm the code' suggests this is the second step after start_email_verification, but the description never states that prerequisite, nor does it describe when not to call it (e.g. already verified sessions, expired codes). An agent can infer the flow but must guess.

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