Orders: verify code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces that it is a read check and does not change the order. It adds value by explaining the possible response statuses (success, fail, expired, attempts), which is beyond what annotations provide. However, annotations already cover the safety profile well, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 concise, with no wasted words. It front-loads the key purpose and behavior. Every sentence contributes: purpose, read-only nature, response statuses, and sibling differentiation.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (statuses). It covers behavior, scope, and distinguishes from related tools. For a simple verification tool, this is 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 100% with both parameters documented (parcelID and confirmCode have descriptions). The description does not add new semantic information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 verifies a confirmation code for handing over an order at a pickup point. It specifies it is a read check that does not change the order, and explicitly distinguishes it from delivery_check_confirmation_code. The verb 'verifies' and resource 'confirmation code for order handover' are specific and unique among siblings.

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 warns not to confuse with delivery_check_confirmation_code, providing a clear alternative. It implies the tool is for order management handover at pickup points, giving context for when to use it.

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