Send login code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the key behavior: sending a one-time code via SMS, and implies a side effect (generating and sending a code). However, it does not disclose potential consequences such as rate limits, prerequisites (e.g., not already logged in), or what happens on failure. For a simple tool, the core effect is clear enough, earning a 4 rather than a 3.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the primary action, the second mentions the following step. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no filler. Every sentence is purposeful and adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does and what comes next. It leverages the sibling context by referencing the confirm tool, which is crucial for an agent to orchestrate the login flow. It does not explain error handling or response format, but given the simplicity, the description is sufficiently complete. A 4 is appropriate as it exceeds minimal viability but with minor gaps.

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% for the only parameter (phoneNumber), which already includes format and example. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 applies, as the description does not contribute extra semantic value for parameters.

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's purpose: 'Send a one-time login code by SMS to your phone.' It uses a specific verb (send) and resource (login code), and distinguishes itself from the sibling login_confirm by explicitly mentioning the next step. The title 'Send login code' aligns with the description without being tautological.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Next: inpost_consumer_login_confirm with the code from the message.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool (initial step) and what to use next (confirm step). It effectively differentiates the tool from login_confirm and implies it is the first stage of the login flow.

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