check_verification

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

No annotations provided, so description must bear full burden. Only states it 'verifies', missing details like whether the code is consumed, allowed attempts, or error handling. No output schema to clarify return behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediate context. Efficient for the information provided.

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 no output schema and a simple verification flow, the description lacks critical information about tool behavior (e.g., output on success/failure, whether it invalidates the code). Incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without guessing.

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 descriptions cover parameters (100% coverage). The description adds that the same number and country code must match those used in verify_phone, marginally adding context beyond schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool verifies an OTP code sent to a phone number. References the companion tool 'verify_phone', distinguishing it as the post-send verification step. However, could be more explicit about the result of verification.

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?

Implies usage after verify_phone by mentioning 'previamente enviado... con verify_phone', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like resend_verification or reset_verification.

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