ponisha_login_otp_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the concrete side effect (an SMS is dispatched to the user's phone) and the required follow-up call, which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations. It omits failure modes such as invalid numbers, rate limiting, or what happens if a code was already requested.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the step identity and the action, followed by the next-step instruction. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it does, the input format, and the required next call. The only gap is the expected response (e.g. a confirmation or request token) and error behavior, which an agent might want before calling.

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 the schema already documents the single 'mobile' parameter with the same Iranian-format example. The description repeats that example rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific action (request an OTP SMS) and explicitly frames it as 'Step 1 of SMS login', which cleanly separates it from ponisha_login_otp_verify (step 2) and ponisha_login_password (the alternative auth path). An agent can pick the right tool 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?

It states the sequencing rule clearly: call this first, then prompt the user for the code and call ponisha_login_otp_verify. It does not say when to prefer OTP over ponisha_login_password, so the choice between the two login flows is left implicit.

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