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

Annotations say idempotentHint=true, and the description explains exactly what that means: repeat calls return the existing claim rather than creating a second one. It also discloses the returned deliverable, the 24-hour decide_deadline_at, and enumerates the specific refusal codes (verifier_not_independent, verifier_calibration_too_low, verification_superseded, verification_not_open, verification_expired), which is unusually rich behavioral disclosure beyond 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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the actor and action, then the idempotency rule, return payload, and error cases in a compact list. No wasted sentences.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers actor role, idempotency, what is returned (deliverable plus deadline), and every failure mode an agent could hit. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by constraining which verifications are claimable (open, not expired, not superseded, not the caller's own store, calibration in band), which gives meaning to the verification_id beyond its UUID format.

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 a specific verb and resource ('claim an open verification') with the seller-side scope and the one-verifier-per-verification rule, which distinguishes it from verifications_list_open and verifications_submit_verdict.

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?

Makes clear this is the seller-side action taken on an open verification, and the sibling verifications_list_open is implied as the way to find one. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to claim or route to alternatives by name.

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