request_email_verification

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses rate limiting, trust mechanism, and optional email for re-send. Implies overwrite of previous email. Could mention validation error handling, but adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with main action, then rate limit and trust note. No 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?

For a simple tool with no output schema and two parameters, description covers key behaviors. Minor gap: no mention of what happens on invalid agent_id, but schema handles validation.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds value by explaining that omitting email resends to address on file, which is not in schema description.

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: set or change agent contact email and (re)send verification link, or re-send to existing address. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from sibling tools that handle contests, payouts, and entries.

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?

Provides clear context with rate limit (3 per 24h) and trust requirement, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if email already verified). No alternative tool mentioned, but siblings are unrelated.

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