auth_verification_codes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral fact — the emulator intercepts these codes instead of sending SMS — which helps an agent understand why this data exists and that it is emulator-only. However, it never states that the operation is read-only, whether reading consumes or leaves the codes pending, or what the returned codes look like.

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 sixteen-word sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier ('pending') is front-loaded. The fragmentary, verb-less construction is the only structural weakness — a leading verb such as 'List' would make the call direction unmistakable at no length cost.

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 is simple (no parameters, no nesting), but with no annotations and no output schema the description is the only source of truth about the result set, and it never says what each entry contains (phone number, code, expiry, timestamp) or whether multiple codes can be pending at once. It explains the concept well but leaves the agent guessing about the return shape.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is unfiltered — it returns the pending codes rather than the pending codes for a given user or phone number.

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 names a specific resource — pending phone verification codes — and adds the distinguishing detail that these are held by the Auth emulator rather than sent as SMS. It is a noun phrase with no verb, so an agent must infer that this is a read/list operation, and it does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby auth_oob_codes sibling. Still, the resource is identifiable without opening the schema.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to call this rather than auth_oob_codes, auth_mint_token, or auth_verification-style siblings. The one implicit cue is the word 'pending', which suggests inspecting in-flight codes during emulator testing, but the agent must supply that reasoning itself.

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