validateOtp

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 discloses the core behavior, required precondition ('signed-in account'), and return value. However, it does not mention behavior on invalid OTP, whether the code is consumed, error responses, or any security/session requirements beyond the signed-in account.

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: a clear action statement, endpoint, usage sequence, and a useful example. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 low-complexity tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential call flow, input example, and return shape. It could be more complete by mentioning invalid-code behavior or when to include 'email', but the core usage is sufficiently specified.

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%, so the schema already documents both 'otp' and 'email'. The description adds a concrete example using only 'otp' and shows the expected output, but it does not clarify when the optional 'email' parameter should be provided or add meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Validate') with a concrete resource ('email one-time code'), states the outcome ('return the account's API key'), and gives the exact endpoint. It clearly differentiates this from the sibling requestOtp by saying to use it after that step.

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 explicitly says 'Use after requestOtp', giving the agent a clear sequencing instruction. It does not discuss when not to use the tool or compare it to other auth-related siblings like loginUser, but the primary usage context is established.

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