Verify OTP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'verify' without disclosing potential side effects (e.g., whether the OTP or session is consumed/invalidated), success/failure behavior, or any auth requirements. The agent has no information about what happens after verification.

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?

One precise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Verify', and no fluff. Every word contributes meaning, and the reference to otp_start is concise but informative.

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?

The tool is simple with only two params, both documented. However, with no output schema, the description doesn't explain what result the agent should expect (e.g., success/failure, session state). It is minimally viable but lacks behavioral context that would make it fully self-contained.

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 already describes both parameters (otp_code as 'Code entered by the user' and session_id as 'OTP session_id from otp_start') with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal value beyond that, merely reinforcing the session_id's origin. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Verify an OTP code') and the specific resource ('a LoginWA session_id returned by otp_start'). This differentiates it from otp_start (which starts the flow) and sends a strong signal about the tool's role in the OTP verification sequence.

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 a clear usage context by linking the session_id to otp_start, implying the tool should be used after otp_start. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the precondition is evident and sufficient for a simple verification step.

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