fetch_verification_code

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, uses IMAP BODY.PEEK with revocable app password, scoped to known ATS domains, return format {status, code?}, and retry logic. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary statement, followed by context and usage notes. It is moderately long but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly tighter but overall well-structured.

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 has only one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers behavior, safety, and retry logic comprehensively. The only gap is the undocumented 'minutes' parameter, but overall it is quite complete.

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 has one parameter 'minutes' with default 15 and 0% description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, failing to add meaning beyond the schema despite the need to compensate for low coverage.

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 tool reads the newest ATS email-verification code from the applicant's own inbox, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_application or fetch_job_description.

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 explicitly states when to use (for the emailed-code gate) and when not to use (for captchas or no-AI attestations), and provides retry guidance (wait ~8s, retry up to 3x). This is excellent usage context.

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