food_login_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not say what happens on an invalid code, whether the token is single-use, whether the session is established afterward, or what permissions or rate limits apply.

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 fragment is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise: three words carry no operational content. Length is not the problem; absence of information is.

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?

A four-parameter authentication tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no required-parameter markings is left almost entirely unexplained. An agent cannot determine what to pass for via or token, or what a successful verification returns.

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?

Four parameters (via, code, phone, token) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place meaning could be added — and it adds none. In particular the relationship between code and token, and the meaning of via, are completely undocumented.

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?

"Verify food OTP" names a verb (Verify) and a resource (food OTP), so the intent is discernible, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name food_login_verify with no scope detail. It gives no explicit differentiation from sibling food_login_send, leaving the verify-vs-send relationship to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The existence of food_login_send weakly implies this is the second step of a login flow, but nothing in the description states that ordering or when this tool should be preferred.

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