Start login

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

The description states that it sends an email and creates a session, which are side effects. However, the annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, contradicting the described mutation. This is a serious inconsistency. The description fails to disclose the non-read-only nature and does not reconcile with the annotation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and outcome, with no wasteful words. All information is directly relevant and immediately useful for an agent.

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?

The tool has an output schema (per context signals) and the description mentions a 'short-lived challenge session', which covers the return value. However, the contradiction with the annotation creates a critical gap: an agent relying on annotations would be misled about side effects. This undermines overall completeness despite satisfactory schema and description.

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 fully documents the 'email' parameter with format, pattern, and a clear description. The description adds minimal value by mentioning email OTP but does not elaborate on syntax or constraints beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, 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 clearly states the verb ('start'), the resource ('Benepass email OTP login'), and the outcome ('sends a one-time code... returns a short-lived challenge session'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like complete_login, auth_status, and logout, making it easy for an agent to select the correct first step.

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 implies this is the initial authentication step, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites (e.g., must have a valid email). No exclusions are provided, but the context of siblings suggests it is the entry point. Lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it.

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