Complete two-factor login

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

The description explains the behavioral nuance of the two-factor process: the tool can complete the login either via user approval (no code) or via email code (with code), and the optionality of 'school' based on multiple pending schools. This goes beyond just saying 'complete login' and gives the agent critical operational context. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and it does not disclose what happens after completion (e.g., whether it sets a session, returns tokens, or requires prior state), so a 4 is appropriate rather than 5.

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 concise, three sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and then provides conditional guidance in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place, covering the essential usage scenarios without fluff.

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 (a two-step authentication flow) and the absence of annotations, the description covers the essential usage scenarios and parameter semantics. However, it does not mention what the output schema looks like or what the tool returns (though an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain that). It also doesn't mention error cases (e.g., invalid code, no pending login), but for a well-scoped tool with clear parameters, this is a minor gap. A 4 is justified.

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 0%, meaning the schema only provides types and defaults (nullable strings) with no semantic meaning. The description fully compensates by explaining the meaning of 'code' (the emailed code vs. null when approved) and 'school' (needed if multiple schools are waiting). This is essential for correct invocation, so the description provides high value beyond the schema.

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: completing a two-factor login for EduPage. It uses a specific verb ('Finish') and identifies the resource ('EduPage login'), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings—all siblings are read-only or content operations, whereas this is an authentication step, so there is no confusion about which tool to use.

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 when-to-use guidance: after the user approves the login, call with no 'code'; if a code was emailed, pass it as 'code'. It also clarifies when 'school' is needed (only if several schools are waiting), which gives clear context for parameter usage and alternatives.

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