verify_code

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context that the tool returns valid=true for correct and non-expired codes, which complements the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the key outcome. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and return condition. It mentions expiration, which is important. Missing details like error handling or rate limits, but annotations already cover safety and idempotency.

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?

The description provides no parameter details beyond the input schema. While code and destination are described in the schema, the purpose parameter is left undocumented (only has a default). With schema coverage at 67%, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 action (verify), the resource (code sent via email or SMS), and the outcome (returns valid=true if correct and not expired). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_email_otp and verify_mfa by specifying the channels (email/SMS).

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 implies usage for checking email/SMS verification codes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_email_otp or verify_mfa. There is no guidance on when not to use it.

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