tokonomix_onboard_verify

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden and excels: it discloses side effects (provisions account, writes credentials file, shows key once), the lack of API key requirement, and the postcondition that other tools become usable. This is rich, honest behavioral detail.

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 sentences, each dense and purposeful: purpose, prerequisite, side effects. It is front-loaded with what the tool does, then explains implications. No fluff 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: input (OTP), side effects, return value (starting credit balance), and the broader onboarding context. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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% (both parameters fully described). The description adds minor context by specifying that email must match tokonomix_onboard and code comes from the OTP email, but these are already implied in the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Verifies the 6-digit OTP') and clearly identifies the resource ('from tokonomix_onboard'). It explicitly labels itself as 'Step 2 of keyless first-run onboarding', distinguishing it from its sibling tokonomix_onboard and other 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 context: it is step 2 of onboarding, must follow tokonomix_onboard, and is a prerequisite for using other tokonomix_* tools. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the orchestration is clear.

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