verifyapi_send_otp

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 mentions the core action and return value but omits behavioral traits such as error handling, idempotency, permission requirements, or what happens on failure. The 'See docs' reference partially mitigates this, but the description itself is minimal.

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, front-loading the core purpose and return value, then adding key detail about fallback channels and a documentation link. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 nested object schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential return value (reference_id) and the fallback mechanism. However, it lacks completeness on error responses, edge cases, and response structure, making it adequate but not thorough.

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 description adds only marginal value by explaining the purpose of fallback_time and the array order. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not contradict or substantially enhance the schema.

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 verb 'send' and the resource 'one-time passcode (OTP) to a phone number', and it indicates the return value (reference_id) and its relation to verifyapi_check_code, distinguishing it from siblings like verifyapi_check_code and messaging_send_sms.

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 implies that verifyapi_check_code is the next step but does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like messaging_send_sms. It gives context but lacks explicit exclusions or usage boundaries.

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