Signup: verify code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and safety profile are covered structurally. The description is consistent with these and adds that the call creates an account and is form-driven, but says nothing about auth requirements, what happens on failure, or side effects on existing accounts. With annotations carrying the main burden, 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the audience constraint immediately after. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

Since the description tells the agent this tool is not for assistant use, the essential context (do not call it, it completes signup) is present, and no output schema is expected. However, the four undocumented required parameters and the absence of any note on failure/verification behavior leave real gaps if the tool is ever invoked.

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 0% and all four required parameters (otp, acceptTerms, termsVersion, continuationToken) are undocumented in the schema. The description only obliquely references 'the code' and the account-creation step, leaving continuationToken and the terms parameters entirely unexplained. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('verify the code and create the account') and explicitly frames itself as 'step two' of the signup flow, distinguishing it from air_signup_send_code (step one) and air_create_account. An agent can place it precisely in the flow without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a strong, explicit exclusion: 'Submitted by the form itself, not by the assistant.' This tells the agent it should not invoke the tool. It stops short of naming what the assistant should call instead, so it is clear context without a full alternative routing.

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