verify_signup_otp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states the auth prerequisite and the response content, but it does not disclose OTP expiry, single-use/consumption behavior, or failure outcomes such as invalid OTP handling.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the auth requirement is a separate, useful note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 three-parameter tool, the description covers the operation, the auth context, and the high-level return value. It is slightly underspecified because there is no output schema and the exact shape of 'account/API-key details' is not described, but enough is present for correct invocation.

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 67%; otp and phone_number are described in the schema, while email is only format-constrained. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it does not materially compensate for the missing email description, though email's self-describing format limits the impact.

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 ('Verify') and resource ('ClawdCall signup OTP'), and explicitly says the tool returns account/API-key details. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling send_signup_otp, whose action is sending rather than verifying.

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 phrase 'signup OTP' and 'Does not require an existing API key' give clear context: it belongs in a signup flow before an API key exists. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intended scenario is unambiguous relative to the sibling tools.

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