Authenticate with OTP

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral clarity. It merely says 'Complete OTP authentication' but does not disclose what happens on success or failure, whether a session/token is created, if there are side effects, or any rate limiting/retry behavior.

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 a single, focused sentence that clearly communicates the core action and the origin of both required parameters. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description is sufficient for basic invocation since it names the required parameters and their source. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits the result of the authentication (e.g., token, session) and does not mention failure modes or the optional collection behavior.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond repeating 'otpId from request_otp' and 'code the user received', which are already in the schema. The optional collection parameter is not referenced.

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 ('Complete OTP authentication') and identifies the specific resources involved: otpId from request_otp and the user-received code. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like request_otp and auth_with_password.

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 usage as the second step after request_otp by explicitly referencing 'otpId (from request_otp)'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it directly with auth_with_password or other auth methods.

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