Verify taxpayer OTP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the key side effect: starting a ~6-hour session held in memory. It also implies statefulness and session dependency for later calls, which is valuable behavioral context. It stops short of describing failure behavior or OTP expiration, but the main side effect is clearly communicated.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the step context and specifies the session duration and scope. Every phrase adds value, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it explains the tool's sequence position, its side effect, and its relationship to downstream calls. It does not describe the response shape or what happens on failed verification, but those are minor gaps given no output schema and the tool's straightforward nature.

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% parameter coverage, including descriptions for otp, gstin, and username. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed given the schema is self-explanatory. 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 action (verifies the OTP) and its role as 'Step 2 of a taxpayer session,' clearly distinguishing it from OTP generation and other taxpayer tools. It also names the downstream session effect, which ties it to the tool's unique purpose.

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 clearly places the tool in a sequence: Step 2 after OTP generation, and it explains that subsequent taxpayer_*, get_gstr*, and ledger tools rely on the session it starts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the step-based context is sufficient for an agent to select it correctly.

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