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

The description states OLD is "kept, marked withdrawn with superseded_by=NEW", i.e. the tool mutates claim state, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The rich detail about carried_countersignatures and pending_rerun is genuinely useful, but it is built on a contradiction of the declared safety profile.

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 first sentence front-loads the action, target and precondition with no waste. The second sentence is a dense run-on that packs countersignature semantics into one clause chain, which is efficient but harder to parse than the rest.

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 mutating, non-idempotent operation with no output schema, the description does well on consequences (OLD retained, countersignatures carried but pending_rerun). However, the readOnlyHint contradiction and the total silence on the "reason" parameter leave the agent with unresolved questions about side effects before calling.

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 67%, and the description reinforces the roles of old/new (OLD must be yours, NEW must be live) beyond the schema's bare "Hosted id, or your own runner claim's local id" text. The optional "reason" parameter is not mentioned in the description at all, so coverage remains partial.

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?

"Retire YOUR claim OLD in favour of the live claim NEW" names a specific verb (retire/supersede) and both resources, with clear directionality from OLD to NEW. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like withdraw_claim or submit_claim by the two-claim replacement framing, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It supplies one real precondition — "claimant of OLD only, needs your API key" — and implies the scenario (replacing a claim with a newer live one). It does not say when to prefer this over withdraw_claim plus submit_claim, nor what happens if NEW is not live, so the when-to-use guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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