retrieveAuthCode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side effect: the code is emailed rather than returned in the response. However, it omits possible behavioral details such as prerequisites (admin contact must exist), rate limits, failures, or whether repeated calls are safe.

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?

One sentence communicates the action, target, recipient, and purpose with no wasted words. The URL reference provides external documentation without bloating the description.

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 single-parameter side-effect tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what will happen and why. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit failure or precondition context, but the simplicity of the operation keeps this from being a serious deficiency.

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 schema already explains the only parameter, 'domain'. The description adds no further detail about domain format or constraints, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 ('Email') and identifies the resource ('EPP/auth code for a domain'), the recipient ('admin contact'), and the purpose ('needed to transfer away'). This distinguishes it from transfer-related siblings like transferUpdateChangeEPPCode, which modifies rather than retrieves codes.

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 parenthetical '(needed to transfer away)' implies the intended context: use this when preparing a domain transfer. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives such as transferUpdateResendAdminEmail or checkTransferAvailability, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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