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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world; the description adds far more: the operation is irreversible once it succeeds, research auto-defers when deck parsing is pending, wrong-code errors return attempts-remaining, and re-verification is an idempotent success rather than an error. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Bold-labeled sections (When, Before you call, Returns, On error) make it scannable and front-loaded, with the irreversible consequence stated before the call. Despite its length, every line carries actionable content for a stateful, error-prone operation.

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?

Covers prerequisites, side effects, deferral behavior, idempotency, and a full error taxonomy. An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the return shape, so an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret both success and failure.

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% and both parameters are documented, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds real meaning: the code must be the founder's current, non-stale, non-guessed code, and the applicationId traces back to create_application, which goes slightly beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('consume the 6-digit code') and the consequential effect ('start the research pipeline'), which cleanly separates it from resend_verification and get_status. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit ordering ('after create_application, and ideally after the deck has been uploaded'), explicit exclusions ('Don't wait, don't re-verify'), and named alternatives for each failure mode ('call resend_verification for a new one'). Nothing is left to inference.

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