Disco

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the verification process (6-digit code from email), specifies the expected input (same email as previous call), and mentions the output (new API key on success). However, it doesn't detail error cases or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage guidelines and parameter details in a structured 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to 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 complexity (authentication flow with verification), annotations cover safety aspects, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere). The description provides good context on when and how to use it, parameter meanings, and the expected outcome. It could be more complete by mentioning error handling or dependencies, but it's largely adequate.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains both parameters: 'email' as the address used in the previous call and 'code' as the 6-digit verification code from email. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's basic types, though it could specify format constraints (e.g., email validation, code length).

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 specific action ('Complete login and receive a new API key'), distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'discovery_login' by specifying it's called after that tool returns a verification status, and identifies the resource involved (API key). It's not a tautology and provides clear differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Call this after discovery_login returns {"status": "verification_required"}') and provides clear prerequisites (user receives a 6-digit code by email). It distinguishes it from the sibling 'discovery_login' by specifying the workflow sequence, though it doesn't mention other alternatives explicitly, but the context is sufficiently detailed.

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