request_verification_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the delivery channels (SMS/voice) and the target phone number, but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., unverified number), rate limits, costs, or expected post-request behavior. The basic action is clear but side effects are not detailed.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action, includes the target resource, and specifies the delivery methods. Every word contributes meaning and there is no redundancy or 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 tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action, target, and method appropriately. It is missing a small amount of context about the expected result and the next step (e.g., using verify_phone_code), but the invocation details are complete enough for correct use.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'language' and 'code_method' are documented in the input schema. The description only echoes the SMS/voice options for code_method, adding no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Request') and clearly identifies the resource (WhatsApp Business phone number) and the two delivery methods (SMS or voice call). It is distinct from the sibling verify_phone_code, which would consume the code rather than request it.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. It does not mention that this should precede verify_phone_code or that it is part of phone number registration, nor does it state any exclusions or alternative tools.

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