verify_otp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the purpose ('complete login') but does not mention success/failure behavior, whether the OTP is consumed/invalidated, required authentication context, or what the tool returns. This leaves significant unknowns for a state-changing operation.

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 two short sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second gives sequencing guidance. It is front-loaded, directly actionable, and contains zero filler or redundant information.

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?

While the tool is simple and parameter coverage is complete, the description lacks information about return values (there is no output schema) or side effects beyond 'complete login'. It does provide the flow context ('after request_otp'), which is helpful, but the absence of response or failure behavior leaves a moderate completeness gap.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (mobile_number and otp) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter syntax, format, or relationship details beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline score for high schema 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's purpose with a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('OTP received on mobile to complete login'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like request_otp (which sends the OTP) and check_auth_status (which checks login state) by defining its role as the verification step in the login flow.

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 instruction 'Call after request_otp' provides explicit sequencing context for when to use this tool, directly referencing a sibling tool. However, it does not state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like check_auth_status, so it falls just short of full alternative guidance.

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