Finish sign-up with a code

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write; the description usefully adds that it consumes a one-time email code and produces a credential (an API key) as its side effect. It doesn't cover failure behavior for an expired or wrong code, which matters for a verification step.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the sequencing precondition and ending with the return value. The leading 'Getting set up:' label is mild filler but costs little.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses the key return value (API key) that an agent needs to proceed. For a 2-required-param, non-destructive flow tool this is largely sufficient; only error/retry semantics are absent.

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%, so both required params and the optional foundVia/agentName are already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'send the email and the code' and says nothing about the optional attribution or agent-naming fields, so it adds little beyond structured data.

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?

States a specific action (complete sign-up by submitting the emailed code) and a concrete outcome (returns an Andru API key for this agent). It explicitly positions itself in the signup_start → signup_verify sequence, so an agent can distinguish it from signup_start and signup_status immediately.

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?

Gives a clear precondition: use it after signup_start, when the human reads back the 6-digit code. What's missing is the fallback path — nothing says what to do if no code arrived (presumably signup_status) or what to do when verification fails.

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