generate_evc_otp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the OTP is sent to the registered mobile number and email, and that the return is a status or error dict. However, it does not mention side effects like whether previous OTPs are invalidated, rate limits, expiry, or failure modes beyond a generic error dict.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by workflow, arguments, and return values in labeled sections. It is not bloated, though the Args section partially duplicates schema property names and the OTP term is repeated a few times.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: what it does, where it fits (Step 6), what the inputs mean, where the OTP is delivered, and the next action. Minor omissions such as expiry and rate-limit behavior keep it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains access_token as a 'Taxpayer session token' and pan as a 'Permanent Account Number associated with the GSTIN' with an example format. This adds real meaning beyond the bare parameter names, though it could be richer about access_token sourcing or validation.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate an Electronic Verification Code (EVC) OTP for filing (Step 6).' It clarifies the tool's place in a workflow and distinguishes it from siblings like file_gstr1 and save_gstr1_data by naming the OTP generation action and the expected downstream consumer.

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 gives clear context: this is 'Step 6' in the filing process, and it instructs to 'Pass the received OTP to file_gstr1().' This helps an agent sequence the calls, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for other steps.

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