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 flow (6-digit code from email), success outcome (returns API key), and prerequisite state from discovery_signup. However, it doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs explicitly.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second provides usage context, third explains parameters and outcome. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, and the bullet-point style for args enhances readability without verbosity.

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 (verification step), annotations cover safety/idempotency, and an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and outcome adequately without redundancy.

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 must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'email' is described as 'Email address used in the discovery_signup call' (tying it to prerequisite), and 'code' as '6-digit verification code from the email' (specifying format and source). This goes beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail validation rules.

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 Disco signup using an email verification code'), identifies the resource (signup process), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by referencing discovery_signup as a prerequisite. It goes beyond restating the name/title by explaining the verification mechanism.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Call this after discovery_signup returns {"status": "verification_required"}'), provides a clear prerequisite, and distinguishes it from alternatives by specifying it's for verification after signup. No misleading or missing guidance.

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