extract_otp_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function, missing details on side effects, error handling (e.g., if no OTP found), or required permissions. This is insufficient for a tool that processes user data.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks any structure (e.g., sections, bullet points). It conveys the purpose efficiently but at the cost of omitting useful details.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (0 required, all undocumented), an output schema (not described in the description), and sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what the output contains, or how this tool differs from siblings in detail.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter details. It loosely references 'email body' and 'message reference' but does not explain the function of message_text, inbox_id, message_id, otp_length_min, or otp_length_max. The agent has no guidance on how to use these parameters.

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 specifies the verb 'Extract' and the resource 'numeric OTP code from an email body or message reference'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like extract_verification_link, which extracts a link rather than a code.

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 that this tool should be used when a numeric OTP code is needed from an email, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites.

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