Verify Onboarding OTP

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

The description discloses many behavioral traits beyond the minimal annotations: the returned onboarding_token is 48 characters, token expires after 30 minutes, there is no refresh endpoint, token_issued_at/token_expires_at are ISO 8601, wizard_variant behavior depends on country setup, and no API key is required. The annotations only specify flags; the description enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's side effects, lifecycle, and response semantics.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by sequence context, then bullet-point key behaviors. Each bullet is concise and information-dense, covering token, expiry, response fields, wizard variant, completion condition, and admin case. No wasted words; the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 fully compensates by explaining return values (onboarding_token, token_issued_at, token_expires_at, wizard_variant, wizard_required) and their significance. It also covers the token lifecycle, expiration handling, sequence context, and authentication nuance for admins. For a step in a multi-step onboarding flow, this is complete and actionable for an agent.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for parameters like otp (schema already notes 'or the administrator password for admin accounts'), email (schema already requires matching), and site_id/platform (schema already describes them). The description's value is more about return behavior than parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Verify the OTP from pop_onboarding_request_otp and obtain an onboarding token.' It explicitly references the sibling tool pop_onboarding_request_otp, distinguishing this as the verification step in the onboarding flow. The title and name are consistent, and the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit usage context: 'This is step 2 of 5 in the onboarding sequence.' It states when not to continue ('If wizard_required is false after this step, the account is already fully set up. No further steps needed'), and offers an alternative when the token expires ('No refresh endpoint; restart from request-otp if expired'). It also notes when to use the admin password as OTP, giving clear when-to-use vs alternative guidance.

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