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

Annotations are all false (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, destructive), so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states 'A person reviews every submission before any answer is released; nothing is instant,' which is meaningful beyond the annotations. It also mentions a receipt ID, indicating a submission rather than an immediate answer. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The core action and key behavioral caveat are front-loaded. Every phrase adds value: the action, the receipt ID, and the human-review/non-instant warning. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the essential action, the asynchronous nature, and the receipt ID. An output schema exists, so return values are already specified. For a submission tool with clear annotations and schema, nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, meaning each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific detail, but the schema fully documents them, including the required 'acknowledge' boolean and optional fields. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('send'), a clear resource ('one claim'), and the purpose ('checked at its primary source and graded'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools: check_status is for status, contact_us for contact, and about_eous for info. No ambiguity.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for submitting a claim, and the non-instant, human-review nature sets expectations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the sibling names make the use case obvious. A minor gap: no mention that check_status should be used after submission.

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