check_marking_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'verification of authenticity' without revealing whether the tool performs a remote lookup, reads from a database, or has any side effects or limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently communicates the core purpose in minimal words.

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 the tool's low complexity, the schema and output schema cover parameters and return values. However, the description lacks usage context and sibling differentiation, so an agent may not know when to choose this over get_cis_info, which also operates on codes.

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 baseline is 3; both parameters are already documented with descriptions and the codeType enum. The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Проверка' – verification) and a specific resource ('подлинность товара по коду маркировки Честный ЗНАК' – product authenticity by Honest Sign marking code). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_product_info or check_batch, which target different operations and data.

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 the tool is for verifying product authenticity by a marking code, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of siblings such as get_cis_info or check_batch. There are no exclusions or alternative routes mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose statement.

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