request_pairing_code

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool's purpose and does not explain what happens after the request, whether the code is sent to the phone number, whether it expires, or what the response contains. For a tool that likely sends an out-of-band code, this is a meaningful gap.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.

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 low complexity, two clearly documented parameters, and simple purpose, the description is adequate for basic selection and invocation. However, the absence of annotations and output schema, combined with limited behavioral detail, leaves some uncertainty about the actual call flow and response.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both required parameters clearly. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as clarifying that phoneNumber is the destination for the code, but it does not need to compensate because the schema is sufficient.

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 states a specific action ('Request'), a specific resource ('an 8-digit pairing code'), and a clear purpose ('as an alternative to scanning a QR code'). This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling tool get_qr_code without needing to inspect the schema.

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 phrase 'as an alternative to scanning a QR code' provides clear context for when this tool should be used instead of get_qr_code. It does not explicitly list exclusions or mention when not to use it, but the intended usage scenario is understandable.

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