Get confirmation code

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return values (code and attempts) and the 404 error condition, including a case where API issuance is prohibited. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys behavior, return values, and error cases.

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 simple single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the return values and the main 404 error condition. While it does not elaborate on the format of the code or the meaning of 'attempts,' the information is sufficient for basic usage given the lack of output schema.

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 schema fully describes the single claim_id parameter with coverage at 100%, including instructions to use the ID from create_claim or search_claims responses. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it appropriately relies on 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 clearly states the tool 'get_confirmation_code' retrieves a pickup/delivery confirmation code for the current point of a claim, with a scope qualifier ('when a code applies'). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_claim or get_courier_phone.

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 usage context ('when a code applies') but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks exclusionary guidance or references to sibling tools, so usage is inferred rather than explicit.

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