Send OTP code

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is implied, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as whether the OTP is generated automatically, any side effects, or constraints. The description simply restates the action.

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 one sentence of 15 words, efficiently conveying the core action. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it lacks additional details that could be included without being verbose.

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's complexity (sending OTP with multiple channels and parameters, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return behavior, the fact that it generates a code automatically, or any success/failure indicators. The agent has to rely on external knowledge.

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%, so all parameters are already described in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the action (send) and resource (one-time password) and lists possible channels (SMS, WhatsApp, email). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like send_sms or send_email, which could confuse an agent about when to use this OTP-specific tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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