requestOtp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the side effect (sends a 6-digit code to the account email) and that the code is 'fresh', implying a new code is issued. It does not mention rate limits or error conditions, but the core side effect is explicit.

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 concise sentences plus an example, with the main action and key side effect front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, side effect, default behavior, and next step with an example. It omits the exact response shape, but that is not critical for a fire-and-forget OTP request, and the flow is clear.

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 schema description covers 100% of the single parameter, and the tool description reiterates that the email defaults to the configured key's account. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 verb ('Request'), a specific resource ('fresh email one-time sign-in code'), and even the HTTP endpoint. It clearly distinguishes itself from validateOtp by naming the next step, so an agent can tell these siblings apart.

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 gives clear usage context: this is the first step in an OTP authentication flow and the next tool to call is validateOtp. It does not explicitly list alternatives to avoid, but the sequencing guidance is strong enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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