tax_tp_sms_verification

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

The description says 'Verify SMS code', implying a state change (write operation), but annotations set readOnlyHint: true, indicating it is a read operation. This is a direct contradiction. No additional behavioral context is given beyond the annotations.

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 a single sentence with a Georgian translation, concise and front-loaded. No wasted words, but could include more useful information per its purpose.

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?

Given the tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and annotations that contradict the description, the description is not complete. It lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidance, making it inadequate for an agent to use correctly.

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%, with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline of 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 clearly states the tool verifies an SMS code for 2-step authentication related to payer info. The action (verify) and resource (SMS code for payer info) are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'tax_gita_sms_verification' by specifying 'standard payer info'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools should be used. The sibling tools include similar verification/activation tools, but no differentiation is provided.

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