Start Obsideo signup (or claim the trial)

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

Beyond the annotations (openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses concrete external effects: sending an email with a verification code, claiming or creating an account, preserving existing bucket/keys/data, and refusing placeholder or disposable domains with labeled errors. This gives the agent a strong picture of side effects and failure modes.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: the core action and email behavior are front-loaded, the trial-claim conditional is explained concisely, and the 'then call signup_verify' next step is a useful, non-redundant closing. No filler or repetition.

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 stateful signup flow with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers both account-creation and trial-claim modes, validation behavior, and the next step. A small gap is that it does not describe the response/return shape or the existing-account (email_in_use) path, though the schema does document abandon_trial for that case.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter behavior for the main required parameter by explaining the email must be readable and that placeholder/disposable domains are rejected. It does not add much for source or abandon_trial, but the schema already describes those adequately.

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 ('Start Obsideo signup') followed by concrete behavior: it emails a 6-digit verification code, claims an existing no-email trial if configured, or creates a new account. This distinguishes it from signup_verify, which is the follow-up verification step, and from the other sibling tools.

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?

The description gives clear conditional context: if a no-email trial is configured, this tool claims it; otherwise it creates a new account. It also provides operational guidance ('Use a real inbox...' and 'Then call signup_verify'). It does not explicitly compare against alternatives like portal or upgrade, but the context is clear and no exclusions are needed.

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