Request Onboarding OTP

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

The description goes far beyond annotations by disclosing key behaviors: OTP is returned directly in the response, expiry is 10 minutes, accounts are auto-created for new emails, administrators require a different password flow, and no API key is needed. This adds substantial context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 moderately long but well-structured with a clear opening line and bullet points for key behaviors. Every sentence adds value, covering purpose, sequence, and edge cases. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly tightened without losing fidelity.

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's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers authentication requirements (no API key), behavioral side effects (account creation), temporal constraints (10-minute expiry), and the exact next step in the workflow. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and handle the response.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that 'lang' is only a session hint and does not affect response language, and that 'email' triggers automatic account creation if missing. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Start the POP onboarding flow by sending a one-time password (OTP) to an email address.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates it from siblings by labeling it 'step 1 of 5' and referencing subsequent steps in the sequence.

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 clear usage context by outlining the full onboarding sequence and specifically instructing to 'Pass it to pop_onboarding_verify_otp immediately.' It also notes edge cases (auto-creation, admin accounts) that affect when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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