Check an OTP code

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

Adds important behavior beyond annotations: a successful match returns status approved, a wrong code returns verification_code_invalid, and a failed attempt consumes one of checks_remaining. This aligns with the non-idempotent annotation and gives the agent key side-effect context, though expiration/auth behavior is not covered.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the success and failure semantics. Every sentence adds useful information with no wasted text.

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 output schema and annotations, the description provides enough to call the tool correctly, including success/error outcomes and attempt consumption. It leaves minor gaps around expired verifications or exhausted checks_remaining, but the core operational context is present.

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 schema documents the id parameter, and the description clarifies that the code is user-typed and the verification comes from sendkuy_send_verification. However, schema coverage is only 50%, and the description does not add meaning about the code's required 4-8 digit format beyond what the schema pattern already enforces.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: checking a user-typed OTP code against a verification created by sendkuy_send_verification. It also names the related sibling tool, making the operation distinguishable from send_verification.

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?

Clearly implies this is the follow-up to sendkuy_send_verification and describes what to do with the user-entered code. It does not explicitly state exclusions or what to do when verification has expired or no checks remain, so it is strong but not complete.

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