request_activation_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the code is for social media and not required for API access, but it doesn't describe the response format, delivery method, whether the code expires, or any side effects.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with 'Optional.' Each sentence provides necessary context without any wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with one fully documented parameter, but there is no output schema. The description should clarify what the response contains (e.g., whether the code is returned directly or sent via email), which it doesn't. This leaves a gap in understanding the tool's behavior after invocation.

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% for agent_key, and the schema already describes it as starting with hp_. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides.

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 function: 'Request an activation code (HP-XXXXXXXX) to post on social media for a verified trust badge.' It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting it is not required for API access and that agents are auto-activated.

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?

It says 'Optional' and clarifies the code is for a social media trust badge, not for API access. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like get_activation_status or verify_social_activation.

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