request_transfer_otp

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the key fact that an email will be sent with the code, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether prior OTPs are invalidated. It provides some transparency but not comprehensive coverage.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The 'Step 1' prefix is efficient and informative. No redundant information or fluff.

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 that requests an OTP and sends it via email, the description is nearly complete. It states the purpose and the delivery mechanism. It does not describe the response format or explicitly mention the next step, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable. The output schema is absent, so a bit more detail on the response could help, but it is not a critical gap.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it also does not need to since the schema fully covers the parameters.

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 a specific action ('Request an OTP code') with a well-defined resource and purpose ('to authorize a token transfer'). The 'Step 1' prefix frames it as an initial action in a process, and it is distinct from sibling tools like transfer_tokens or request_withdrawal.

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?

'Step 1' provides clear context that this tool is a prerequisite for token transfers, implying when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., if an OTP already exists). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer its placement.

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