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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so retry safety is covered. The description adds that a 6-digit code from the person is the confirmation credential, but says nothing about what confirmation changes (order state, notifications), what happens when the code is wrong or expired, or whether confirmation is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the second sentence is a non-redundant guard against code mangling. No filler.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves open what a successful confirmation returns or mutates and how failures surface. It covers the credential handling but not the post-call expectations an agent would want.

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 carry parameter meaning; it clarifies that 'code' is a 6-digit code received by the person and must be passed verbatim (no reformatting), which is genuinely useful. However, 'order_id' receives no explanation at all, so half the parameters remain undefined.

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 the verb 'confirm', the resource 'order', and the mechanism '6-digit code the person received', which distinguishes it from place_order/cancel_order/track_order without naming them. It stops short of explicitly routing against those siblings, keeping it at a solid 4.

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?

Contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance — nothing about when confirmation is appropriate versus track_order or cancel_order, nor prerequisites like order state. The sentence 'Use exactly the code they give you' is a parameter-handling instruction, not usage selection guidance.

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