verify_email_otp

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

The description adds the relationship between the token and a prior request_email_otp call, which is useful context beyond the idempotentHint annotation. It does not disclose any side effects, error behavior, or code expiration, but the annotation already covers idempotency.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the action and key context, with no extraneous information.

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 description fully explains the tool's purpose and prerequisite, making it adequate for a simple two-parameter tool. It does not mention the return value or failure behavior, but the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this a minor gap.

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 provides clear descriptions for both parameters (token and otp_code), and the description does not repeat or add parameter details. With 100% schema coverage, the description's minimal contribution is acceptable.

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 function with a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('an email OTP code'), and references the prerequisite token from request_email_otp. This distinguishes it from siblings like verify_otp and request_email_otp.

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 usage context: it must be called after requesting an OTP via request_email_otp, using the token from that call. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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