Verify the emailed code, receive the account token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the token is returned exactly once (a critical side effect) and that an unpaid account generates a checkout link. This goes beyond basic expectations, though details like code expiration or error handling are omitted.

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, no filler, and all information is relevant. The description is front-loaded and structured logically: what exchange happens, what to do with the result, and a conditional note for unpaid accounts.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should cover return values. It mentions the token and optional checkout link, which is sufficient for a simple verification endpoint. It does not cover errors, but the tool's simplicity and sibling context make this gap acceptable.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies 'code' as a 6-digit value, but does not add meaning for 'email' beyond the schema's email format. The token output is discussed, but this is output, not parameter. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 uses the specific verb 'Exchanges' and identifies the resource ('6-digit code for an sk_ account token'). It clearly distinguishes the verification step from sibling tools like proxyllm_signup, which is the code-sending counterpart.

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 the tool is used after signup to convert the emailed code into an account token. It gives explicit post-usage instructions (store token, relay checkout link if unpaid), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use scenarios.

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