Verify Registration

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

Annotations provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (non-deterministic), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds context about the verification code source (email/phone) and the action ('complete registration'), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional traits like error conditions, rate limits, or auth requirements, leaving some gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Complete registration') and provides essential context ('verification code sent to your email/phone'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with one parameter), annotations cover safety and idempotency, but there's no output schema. The description is minimal—it states what the tool does but lacks details on outcomes (e.g., success response, error handling) or integration with siblings like 'dual_register'. It's adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'code' parameter fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format, length, or validation rules). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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: 'Complete registration by submitting the verification code sent to your email/phone.' It specifies the verb ('complete registration') and resource ('verification code'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_register' or 'dual_reset_password_verify', which appear related. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must have initiated registration via 'dual_register'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'dual_register' or 'dual_reset_password_verify'. Usage is implied from the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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