request_registration_otp

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing auth requirements (public endpoint, no API key), rate limits (5 per 10 minutes per IP), duplicate-email checking, OTP lifetime (10 minutes), and the response shape. These are exactly the operational facts the annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by usage routing, then operational constraints, then the return shape. Every sentence carries distinct information; none repeats the name or schema verbatim.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return object ({ ok, status, email, message }), and it covers preconditions, rate limits, and next-step tooling. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning about the email parameter: it is checked for duplicates and is the address the OTP is sent to. The optional name parameter is not elaborated beyond the schema, keeping this just short of the top score.

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+effect: sending a 6-digit email verification OTP to start a PushNotif registration. It explicitly names the sibling it must not be confused with (login_existing_account), so an agent can disambiguate it without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when ('use this tool first when a user wants to create a new account from chat'), when-not ('do not use it for existing accounts'), the named alternative, and the downstream sequencing ('before calling register_new_account'). 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.