verify_otp

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

The annotation adds idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds a prerequisite (previous request_otp call) but does not disclose other behaviors such as whether the token is consumed on success/failure or what the response format is. Given the annotation already covers idempotency, the description provides only modest additional transparency, aligning with a mid-range score.

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 sentence with no redundant or extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action and delivers the essential information efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 two well-documented parameters and a clear prerequisite. The description covers the purpose and the relationship to request_otp adequately. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention return values or side effects (e.g., token invalidation). This leaves a small gap but is generally complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100% with both 'token' and 'pin' documented. The description only mentions the parameters without adding meaning beyond the schema. Since the structured schema already explains each parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate and the description does not need to compensate.

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 'Verify' and identifies the resource as 'an OTP PIN against a token from a previous request_otp call.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_email_otp and request_otp by specifying the exact token source. The scope is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'from a previous request_otp call' establishes a clear precondition and implies the tool should be used after request_otp. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like verify_email_otp, but the reference to request_otp rather than request_email_otp provides an implicit distinction. No exclusions or alternative guidance is present, preventing a 5.

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