growsurf_resend_team_owner_verification_email

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds valuable details beyond that: the response never reveals the owner's email, and it specifies exact HTTP status conditions (200 with SENT, 400 if verified, 429 if rate-limited). This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral information an agent needs. It doesn't contradict annotations and goes beyond them, though it could mention what happens on other errors or failure modes to be fully transparent.

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 tightly packed and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, followed by response semantics and requirements. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy. For a zero-parameter tool, this is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover side effects, the description covers all necessary operational details: what it does, response codes, error conditions, and environmental prerequisites. Nothing is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly. It's fully self-contained for its simple purpose.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a tool with 0 params gets a baseline of 4. The description mentions the required API key and that campaign ID is not required, which are environmental requirements rather than parameters, adding context without inventing parameters. There's nothing else to clarify.

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 action: 'Resend the email-verification message to the bound team's owner.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like growsurf_request_team_verification by emphasizing 'resend' and the targeted owner. The purpose is immediately clear without ambiguity.

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 contextual cues for when to use the tool: it mentions that a 400 is returned if already verified (implying you shouldn't use it for verified owners) and a 429 if sent too recently (indicating rate-limiting). It also notes the API key requirement and that campaign ID is not needed, which helps the agent decide if this tool fits the environment. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, so it's not a perfect 5.

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