get_code

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavior: 'it long-polls until a message arrives or the timeout expires.' This explains the blocking nature and timeout mechanism. However, it does not specify what happens on timeout (e.g., error or empty response) or whether the message is consumed.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second adds usage context and behavioral details. Every sentence is informative, with no wasted words.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and polling behavior. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., does it return just the code or the full message?) or the behavior on timeout expiration, which are important for an agent. This gap reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, providing clear descriptions for both timeout (default/max) and numberId (filter by phone number ID). The description adds little beyond the schema, only implicitly referencing the timeout via 'until a message arrives or the timeout expires.' 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 tool's purpose: 'Wait for an incoming SMS and extract the verification code.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_inbox (inbox retrieval) and get_usage (usage stats).

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 says 'Use this after triggering a verification flow', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is sufficient to differentiate from siblings.

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