wb_cc_order_identity

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

The description communicates the core behavior: verifying a buyer code. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not disclose what happens on success/failure, whether the operation has side effects, or what response to expect. It is minimally transparent but not richly so.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, object, and context with no wasted words. The '[P0]' prefix is minor and does not detract from clarity.

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 tool with only two required string parameters and no complex schema, the description gives the essential purpose and trigger context. Still, the lack of output schema and absence of explicit parameter semantics leave some gaps, especially around expected return values and error behavior.

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 for parameter meaning. It links 'buyer code' conceptually to the passcode, but it does not explicitly map order_code and passcode to their roles, nor does it provide any format or validation hints. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond that.

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') with a clear resource ('buyer code') and context ('when handing over a click-and-collect order'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_cc_order_action or wb_cc_orders_client, none of which perform identity verification.

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 'when handing over a click-and-collect order' provides a clear triggering scenario. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is specific enough for an agent to know when this tool applies.

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