request_activation_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool generates an activation code for social media posting, which implies a read-only operation that doesn't modify system state. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether requesting multiple codes is allowed), authentication requirements beyond the agent_key parameter, or rate limits. The description adds some context but leaves behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and use case, while the second provides important exclusion guidance. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, use case, and exclusions well. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral context about what happens after code generation (e.g., where to post it, expiration, limitations). The description covers the essentials but has room for more operational details.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'agent_key' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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: 'Request an activation code (HP-XXXXXXXX) to post on social media for a verified trust badge.' It specifies the exact resource (activation code with format), the action (request), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_activation_status' or 'verify_social_activation' by focusing on code generation rather than status checking or verification.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: 'to post on social media for a verified trust badge.' It also clearly states when not to use it: 'Not required for API access — agents are auto-activated on registration.' This distinguishes it from automatic activation processes and clarifies its social media-specific use case.

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