verifyapi_check_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 states the action (verify) and requirement but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the OTP is consumed, error handling, or idempotency. This is insufficient given no annotations.

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 sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with critical context. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the action and prerequisite. However, it lacks details on return values, error conditions, or state changes, which would make it more complete.

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% with both parameters documented. The description adds minimal value beyond reinforcing the prerequisite. Per guidelines, high coverage yields baseline 3, and the description does not significantly improve parameter understanding.

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 verifies an OTP code sent to a user, using a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the prerequisite reference_id from verifyapi_send_otp, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like verifyapi_send_otp and verifyapi_get_status.

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 specifies a prerequisite (reference_id from verifyapi_send_otp) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It implies usage after sending an OTP but lacks direct comparison with siblings.

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