auth_verify_otp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals security-relevant behavior: the OTP is never stored or seen by any AI/third party, and tokens are stored securely in the OS keychain. This adds useful context beyond the simple 'verify OTP' action, though it does not cover failure modes or token expiration.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The lengthy quoted reassurance message is essential safety information and not wasted text. Every sentence earns its place, and the 'IMPORTANT' marker effectively highlights critical guidance.

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 login verification tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential flow: verifying the OTP, reassuring the user about security, and disclosing token storage. It lacks details on error handling or OTP expiry, but it provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly in the login sequence.

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 schema already covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'The same phone number used in auth_request_otp'). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters themselves, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Verify the OTP received on the phone number to complete login.' This clearly states the tool's verb (verify), resource (OTP), and purpose (complete login), distinguishing it from siblings like auth_request_otp and auth_logout.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to use the tool ('to complete login') and provides a mandatory user-facing reassurance message to deliver before asking for the OTP. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context of login completion is clear.

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