get_latest_otp

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It states only that the latest OTP is returned; it does not mention whether retrieval is destructive, whether the code is marked as consumed, what happens if no OTP exists, or what the response contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though it achieves conciseness by omitting useful behavioral and parameter details.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin to support correct invocation. An agent cannot tell what identifier format is expected, what channel accepts, what test_id does, or what the return payload looks like.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain the parameters. It indirectly explains identifier ('sent to an identifier') but says nothing about channel values or test_id, leaving two of three parameters effectively undocumented.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource as the latest OTP code sent to an identifier, adding 'SMS or email' to clarify the code type. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_totp_code, so it loses the top score.

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 retrieving the most recent SMS/email OTP for an identifier but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over get_totp_code or other OTP-related siblings, nor any exclusions. There is no explicit when-to-use or alternative routing.

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