verify_email

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains polling, extraction, and GET request, and specifies return value (HTTP status). However, it does not mention behavior on timeout (e.g., what happens if no email arrives), side effects (e.g., marking email as read), or error handling for failed extraction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no redundant information. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it highly concise.

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 (multi-step, polling, extraction) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover prerequisites (inbox must exist), failure modes (timeout, missing link), or side effects, which are critical for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description adds limited value beyond the schema. It clarifies that 'from' and 'subject_contains' are filters and that timeout_seconds controls wait time, but this is already in the schema. The description does not add new parameter-specific guidance.

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: 'polls for a confirmation email, extracts the verification link, and visits it via HTTP GET.' It distinguishes from siblings like wait_for_email by noting it combines multiple steps into one tool.

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 implies usage for email verification flows by stating it combines wait_for_email, link extraction, and click. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention prerequisites like requiring the inbox to already exist.

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