Request otp

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

Annotations already disclose that this is not read-only, is open-world, and is not destructive. The description adds useful context that an OTP is emailed and serves re-verification, but does not mention rate limits, OTP expiry, authentication requirements, or side effects beyond sending email.

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?

A single, short sentence that front-loads the action and its purpose with no wasted words.

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?

The description covers the high-level purpose but is insufficient for a tool with three completely opaque parameters and no output schema. An agent would not know how to construct a valid invocation from the description plus schema.

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 0% and the three parameters (form, params, json_body) are untyped and undocumented. The description provides no parameter guidance at all, leaving the agent unable to know what to pass in these fields.

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 states a specific verb (request) and resource (OTP), and clarifies that it is emailed and used for re-verification before sensitive actions. This distinguishes it from verify_otp, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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 gives an implied usage context ('before a sensitive action') but does not state when not to use it, prerequisites, or explicitly point to alternatives like verify_otp. The agent must infer the workflow.

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