start_phone_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states basic action. It doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., rate limits, idempotency, whether it mutates state) or what happens on failure. Minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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?

Single, well-formed sentence with no redundant words. Every word adds value: 'Send', 'AVAS login OTP', 'existing customer', 'Maldives phone number'.

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?

Despite having an output schema (unknown structure), the description omits what the OTP is for, what the response contains, prerequisites, or any login flow context. For a tool initiating authentication, more context is needed.

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 only parameter 'phone_number' is described as 'Maldives phone number' which adds geographic scope beyond the schema's 'string' type. However, format requirements (e.g., country code) are not specified. Schema coverage is 0% but the description compensates partially.

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 uses a specific verb 'Send' and identifies the resource 'AVAS login OTP' and target 'existing customer's Maldives phone number'. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'verify_phone_login' (sends vs. verifies), though it doesn't explicitly state the relationship.

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. While 'verify_phone_login' is a sibling, there is no explicit instruction that this is the first step or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from names.

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